Not sure adopting your puppy when you were a baby would be the best result. I'd have chosen one of those with a handle you can push along on wheels....
Mr. Mark, got my first hound when I was four. That worked well, I think. Helped that she was a fantastic dog (having since had a couple and known many more, that's not just rose-tinted spectacles).
On life expectancy: I wonder how tortoises do with getting through several owners.
Mr. Mark, got my first hound when I was four. That worked well, I think. Helped that she was a fantastic dog (having since had a couple and known many more, that's not just rose-tinted spectacles).
On life expectancy: I wonder how tortoises do with getting through several owners.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
Seems sound to me, if unconventional in world terms.
As well as giving the House of Lords the benefit of a perspective supported by one in eight voters, increased UKIP representation in the Lords would give UKIP the opportunity to consider the practicalities of law-making closer up.
But could Nigel Farage bear to see another cohort of UKIP politicians with nominally higher standing than he has in the political process?
He wouldn't accept a peerage? I suppose you can no longer be a Lord and an MEP at the same time.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true.
The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
It's not hugely democratic.
If the constituents are aggrieved at their member's record, they can boot them out at the subsequent election.
But that doesn't work either in practice. Voters are not able to vote against the individual and in support of their preferred party. Or vice versa.
People can and do vote against individuals, even if it means they don't support the party they prefer. I think the current system is better than having an unelected executive, members of which you couldn't kick out at the ballot box (directly).
The executive is entirely appointed already. I don't get any say who is CofE.
To some extent you do by the party of the candidate you vote for. The democratic element comes by being able to vote them out.
Mr. Mark, it's a shame dogs don't have better life expectancies.
On a selfish level, yes. But if dogs did live to say 40 or 50, then many people would be robbed of their companionship for much more of their lives - who aged say 60 would take on a new dog, knowing they would probably die before it did? The worry of the upheaval and finding it a new home would weigh too heavy.
No, as I know you have just suffered, we have to enjoy them (and it my case, unashamedly spoil them rotten) for that too brief time they are with us.
On the doggie front we are to become a canine household for the first time when Thomas The Rescue our 18ish year old cat goes through the final cat flap. Much as I am looking forward to having a dog (I have wanted one for as long as I can remember) and I know he will be spoilt rotten (in the nicest possible way), the fact that he might well out-live us both is making me very nervous about the whole project and may well lead to its cancellation.
No doubt lots of people have noticed the spooky coincidence between Cameron needing to find work for a few dozen Conservative MPs who will be redundant when they reduce the size of the Commons and the need to appoint a few dozen more Peers to even up the numbers in the Lords?
Would the site be interested in a guest piece on the London Mayoralty (obviously don't know what else is in the pipeline)? If not I'll publish it elsewhere.
Would the site be interested in a guest piece on the London Mayoralty (obviously don't know what else is in the pipeline)? If not I'll publish it elsewhere.
That'll be another fascinating contest. I did think Tessa was an absolute shoo-in, but I'm now wondering what the effect of a Corbyn victory is going to be. Tessa would probably have to present herself as the Olympics candidate rather than the Labour candidate, I think.
Hunting for a new watch [probably going to buy new rather than see about getting the old one repaired, given it'll also need a new battery in the next couple of years as well]. My old one stopped a few nights ago. Any cut-price recommendations? Just after a basic analogue watch.
You had me worried for a minute. Thought I'd been trolled by Guido and it had got past the checks.
IMO one of the problems of the goonish left is that it is impossible for everyone, including themselves, to distinguish ridiculous satire from the ridiculous real thing.
The claim is the usual post-embarrassment "it was a joke". But that doesn't matter - who can tell the difference?
I did enjoy the use of 'ableist', though. One hopes the dear never visits Yorkshire. One fears being called 'love' by total strangers would trigger severe stress.
Hunting for a new watch [probably going to buy new rather than see about getting the old one repaired, given it'll also need a new battery in the next couple of years as well]. My old one stopped a few nights ago. Any cut-price recommendations? Just after a basic analogue watch.
I haven't worn a watch since about 1995 when my old Seiko that I'd had since I was 14 gave up the ghost. A mobile 'phone serves the purpose of a pocket watch alongside many other roles.
Now, my memory serves you don't have a mobile 'phone so that won't work for you. However, given your life as a literary bon viveur might I suggest a pocket watch would be more "you" than a common or garden wrist watch. If you are prepared to entertain the idea than I think you could do worse than look at Amazon they have some very nice time pieces on offer and some at very reasonable prices.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
Totally disagreed on the last point!
Have young people not got experiences? I'm 33 are you saying I'm totally inexperienced? What experience do the over-45's have on paying tuition fees for instance? When I went to university I had to pay fees, how many in your model of the Lords would have accumulated that experience?
By cutting out half the population you limit the experiences that are accumulated, you don't expand them.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
Totally disagreed on the last point!
Have young people not got experiences? I'm 33 are you saying I'm totally inexperienced? What experience do the over-45's have on paying tuition fees for instance? When I went to university I had to pay fees, how many in your model of the Lords would have accumulated that experience?
By cutting out half the population you limit the experiences that are accumulated, you don't expand them.
Completely agree. Maybe we should have two Upper Houses with equal powers: one comprised exclusively of those aged 45 and above, and another with members from 18 to 44.
Indeed - when your actual style is impossible to tell from parody, it's usually not a good sign.
Tangentially, this reminded me of FPT discussion re BrassEye - and well known celebs became so cringingly embroiled. I mean really - Phil Collins wearing a Nonce Sense t-shirt?
EDIT Makes the SNP's Named Person policy look like it in action.
You had me worried for a minute. Thought I'd been trolled by Guido and it had got past the checks.
IMO one of the problems of the goonish left is that it is impossible for everyone, including themselves, to distinguish ridiculous satire from the ridiculous real thing.
The claim is the usual post-embarrassment "it was a joke". But that doesn't matter - who can tell the difference?
As an aside, one of the reasons we have such a large primary chamber is because the executive is drawn from it. In the US, the cabinet is not made up of members of congress.
Mr. Llama, those do look nice. I'm uncertain whether a pocket watch is for me (not least because I'm somewhat clumsy and I'd be irked if I walked into something and crushed my new watch). It's an interesting suggestion, and I'll consider it.
You're right I have no mobile, they being the work of Satan. On the computer and when watching TV it's not much of an issue, but I have lost track of time when reading/on the PS4.
Edited extra bit: mind you, I take off my watch half the time anyway. A concern is that a pocket watch and t-shirt/jeans is not a good look, I think.
Would the site be interested in a guest piece on the London Mayoralty (obviously don't know what else is in the pipeline)? If not I'll publish it elsewhere.
Does anybody else here feel uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement shown by some of our Conservative friends? After all, they did not receive the support of even 25% of the electorate, and yet they are now on the point of swamping the House of Lords with a swarm of new peers.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
I don´t know why Tory and Labour supporters are now complaining about the present set-up. They had their chance to reform it in the last Parliament, and they chickened out of it.
Does anybody else here feel uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement shown by some of our Conservative friends? After all, they did not receive the support of even 25% of the electorate, and yet they are now on the point of swamping the House of Lords with a swarm of new peers.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
I don´t know why Tory and Labour supporters are now complaining about the present set-up. They had their chance to reform it in the last Parliament, and they chickened out of it.
I did enjoy the use of 'ableist', though. One hopes the dear never visits Yorkshire. One fears being called 'love' by total strangers would trigger severe stress.
Mr Dancer, down here we do "duck" and even "jam tart".
I'm still flabbergasted that so many intelligent young people can be so transparently stupid.
There's no shortage of sensibles around, but they tend to be people earning a living for themselves rather than Oxbridge dreamers about journalism dumped into Min Wage Internships in charities.
(Re: My last para - should note that Abby is still a schoolgirl).
Mr. W, I'm more concerned that a grown man (Ed Miliband) thought price freezing was an actually sensible economic policy. And that the media didn't point out the insanity, or that the electorate didn't realise what madness it was.
@MattW, it was fairly obvious that it was a joke tbh. Maybe the older generation are not familiar with this kind of humour - I've seen it on tumblr all the time - but I got from the get-go she was joking; it certainly wasn't an excuse.
Maybe the Right should lighten up? There's a reason they say right-wing people aren't really funny, after all....
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
The Lords reforms could have been passed if the Lib Dems hadn't been looking for an excuse to drop them. The threatened Tory backbench vote to enable (much needed) longer discussion on the bill was hardly a dagger through its heart. It would of course have been mauled in both Commons and Lords but as you say, that would have been no bad thing.
I'm not sure we do need the hereditaries as such: those who have ability and a good track record can stand for election. My personal preference would be
- Replace the Lords with an elected Senate. - c150 elected members, elected in thirds by Open List Plus every three years, using the Euroconstituencies. - Powers to be those of the Lords pre-1948 (i.e. those of the 1911 Parliament Act). - Provision for the House to co-opt up to ten Life Members, with all the powers of any other member, for exceptional contribution to public life. Co-options to require a two-thirds vote in favour, with no more than three in any one three-year 'Senate parliament'. - Provision for Senate committees to co-opt external members, with voting rights, as necessary, subject to certain safeguards (e.g. externals forming no more than 50% of a committee, super-majority vote for their co-options etc.). - No Senator may serve as a minister, but any minister may address the Senate both in speeches and for questions.
But all this is for the future. The point of the leader is to consider things as they are now.
I like a lot of that, except for the terrible combination of party lists with large constituencies. That's a recipe for the place being full of political placemen. It also has the flaw of further embedding the terrible Euroconstituencies in public life, which have been extremely poorly designed. London is already too politically separated from the rest of the country has already gone too far, and we would not separate Manchester or Glasgow or Leeds from their broader geographic regions. It makes even less sense for London, for which the geographic region is more dependent.
The minimum we could do is make one South East, and then separate off East Anglia. But what would be much better, and encourage more local independents, would be to have STV on a county basis.
As an aside, one of the reasons we have such a large primary chamber is because the executive is drawn from it. In the US, the cabinet is not made up of members of congress.
We have a much larger lower house than most parliamentary systems too.
Does anybody else here feel uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement shown by some of our Conservative friends? After all, they did not receive the support of even 25% of the electorate, and yet they are now on the point of swamping the House of Lords with a swarm of new peers.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
MrPClipp
No, because your 25% point is a red herring.
Even in Scotland the SNP achieved only 35% of the registered vote. 2010 was higher because of 2 parties. Tony Blair in 2005 was 21%. 2001 was 24%. 1997 was 30%. 1992 was 33%. Even 1951 was only 36%.
It's a normal type of number for that metric in our system.
If you want to compare with PR, the figure for Angular Merkel in 2013 was 29%, though that inflates to a larger number in coalition.
As an aside, one of the reasons we have such a large primary chamber is because the executive is drawn from it. In the US, the cabinet is not made up of members of congress.
America is a highly devolved country, 50 separate states each with its own two chamber government and its own separate executive. The whole history of the US Congress revolves around its devolved Federal status. As far as I can see Representatives are elected for just 2 years - which seems stupid.
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.
No doubt lots of people have noticed the spooky coincidence between Cameron needing to find work for a few dozen Conservative MPs who will be redundant when they reduce the size of the Commons and the need to appoint a few dozen more Peers to even up the numbers in the Lords? If only life always worked out that well.
'Spare' Tories will simply mop up Labour seats. (thats my helcopter joke btw)
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The most effective way the Commons holds the executive to account is by removing it when the executive loses majority support. You do not get that in separation of powers systems, so you get executives like the last two years of Bush Jnr, where they continue to govern despite not even retaining the confidence of their own party.
Mr. Llama, those do look nice. I'm uncertain whether a pocket watch is for me (not least because I'm somewhat clumsy and I'd be irked if I walked into something and crushed my new watch). It's an interesting suggestion, and I'll consider it.
You're right I have no mobile, they being the work of Satan. On the computer and when watching TV it's not much of an issue, but I have lost track of time when reading/on the PS4.
Edited extra bit: mind you, I take off my watch half the time anyway. A concern is that a pocket watch and t-shirt/jeans is not a good look, I think.
That is why, and as a Northern I surprised you haven't already sussed this, God gave us the waistcoat.
The waistcoat is a magnificent garment, looks nice with all sorts of other clothing from a natty pin-stripe suit for the City to an open neck shirt and jeans for just about anywhere else. Most importantly one doesn't take off a waistcoat in the way one does a jacket and it has pockets. Usually four of them all ideally placed to hold life's essentials that otherwise get mislaid, train/bus tickets, a small supply of pound coins (for tips, you understand), fag lighter, and pocket watch. Just look at pictures of the great men of the 20th century (e.g Hardy, Churchill, De Salis, Francis Rossi) you'll see them in a waistcoat like as not.
Mr. Llama, those do look nice. I'm uncertain whether a pocket watch is for me (not least because I'm somewhat clumsy and I'd be irked if I walked into something and crushed my new watch). It's an interesting suggestion, and I'll consider it.
You're right I have no mobile, they being the work of Satan. On the computer and when watching TV it's not much of an issue, but I have lost track of time when reading/on the PS4.
Edited extra bit: mind you, I take off my watch half the time anyway. A concern is that a pocket watch and t-shirt/jeans is not a good look, I think.
That is why, and as a Northern I surprised you haven't already sussed this, God gave us the waistcoat.
The waistcoat is a magnificent garment, looks nice with all sorts of other clothing from a natty pin-stripe suit for the City to an open neck shirt and jeans for just about anywhere else. Most importantly one doesn't take off a waistcoat in the way one does a jacket and it has pockets. Usually four of them all ideally placed to hold life's essentials that otherwise get mislaid, train/bus tickets, a small supply of pound coins (for tips, you understand), fag lighter, and pocket watch. Just look at pictures of the great men of the 20th century (e.g Hardy, Churchill, De Salis, Francis Rossi) you'll see them in a waistcoat like as not.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true. The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
There is an element of truth in that but Osborne extended the period for eliminating the deficit by two years (because the structural deficit proved bigger than expected) in about 2012 - at which point labour criticised him... They continued to criticise cuts. In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
As simple expedient would seem to be some sort of retirement age. We forcibly retire judges at 70, that would seem to be reasonable for their Lordships. We could pay them a small pension for "their service to a grateful nation" to sweeten the deal with the current incumbents.
Your point about pensions is well made - at the moment since it is a job for life they only need to turn up to get an allowance. The problem with your proposal is that it would not cut costs if they get a pension. Since they are not electorally accountable however I would not bother with such a pension. Minimum 5 year term otherwise retire at 70. As it is, the HoL is another mess left by Labour.
Does anybody else here feel uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement shown by some of our Conservative friends? After all, they did not receive the support of even 25% of the electorate, and yet they are now on the point of swamping the House of Lords with a swarm of new peers.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
I don´t know why Tory and Labour supporters are now complaining about the present set-up. They had their chance to reform it in the last Parliament, and they chickened out of it.
This is caused by the Lib Dems being anything but democrats.
You cite the 25% figure neglect the fact the Lib Dems received about 4% of the vote of the electorate which roughly translates as 3 men and a dog in each constituency as an excuse to ignore the Salisbury-Addison convention.
You would have thought the humiliation the Lib Dems experienced in May would give you some humility. But no.
Dave was right to declare Lib Dem delenda est prior to the election.
Create 500 new Tory peers Dave, the reactions will be great.
I filled in an interesting Yougov survey this morning. One or two questions on aspiration surprised me.
They asked what I wanted to be when I was eleven (a footballer, and this was one of the options), and did I achieve it (no, I had to make do with being a scientist). There then followed a list of about 15 reasons for my failure. Yet I had to write in the real reason - I wasn't good enough.
This is no longer an option, it seems. I should have put it down to poor family circumstances, the lack of family contacts, the wrong schooling, a deprived upbringing or whatever.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true. The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
There is an element of truth in that but Osborne extended the period for eliminating the deficit by two years (because the structural deficit proved bigger than expected) in about 2012 - at which point labour criticised him... They continued to criticise cuts. In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
Oh sure but that is politics. In government they really wouldn't be doing that differently. Maybe small sums different but the big picture would be much the same.
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.
I think a thread encouraging PBers to share their own industry and professional knowledge of what would happen, for better or worse, if the UK leaves the EU would be interesting.
I have a City background, as London is already the world's leading financial centre, I can't see much upside for the City outside of the EU/EEA. On the downside, to maintain their EU business models fully utilising EU passports, many City firms would need to relocate their Head Offices into another EU state. Over time Dublin, Luxemburg, Frankfurt, Paris and Milan would likely nibble away at the City's dominance. In addition, US and Asian firms would have less incentive to route business through London e.g. HSBC swithering about shifting it's Head Office to Asia.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true. The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
There is an element of truth in that but Osborne extended the period for eliminating the deficit by two years (because the structural deficit proved bigger than expected) in about 2012 - at which point labour criticised him... They continued to criticise cuts. In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
Oh sure but that is politics. In government they really wouldn't be doing that differently. Maybe small sums different but the big picture would be much the same.
I think the current Labour election shows that Balls would not have made the same cuts as Osborne - Osborne has not stopped the pace of his departmental cuts, he accepted that for various reasons the deficit reducing date was put back. This was because the economy was not developing the revenue as expected - the structural part of the deficit was bigger. The deficit of course has 2 component parts, revenue and spending. Revenues were lower than expected and so Osborne did not cut further to meet an arbitrary target.
The question is why is Mrs Balls not speaking out, rather than leaving Kendall to take the flak?
Does anybody else here feel uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement shown by some of our Conservative friends? After all, they did not receive the support of even 25% of the electorate, and yet they are now on the point of swamping the House of Lords with a swarm of new peers.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
I don´t know why Tory and Labour supporters are now complaining about the present set-up. They had their chance to reform it in the last Parliament, and they chickened out of it.
This is caused by the Lib Dems being anything but democrats.
You cite the 25% figure neglect the fact the Lib Dems received about 4% of the vote of the electorate which roughly translates as 3 men and a dog in each constituency as an excuse to ignore the Salisbury-Addison convention.
You would have thought the humiliation the Lib Dems experienced in May would give you some humility. But no.
Dave was right to declare Lib Dem delenda est prior to the election.
Create 500 new Tory peers Dave, the reactions will be great.
Not up to TSE usual high standards. Let's have a bit more humility all round. Tories have the chance to live up to the One Nation rhetoric by tossing a few crumbs to UKIP.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true. The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
There is an element of truth in that but Osborne extended the period for eliminating the deficit by two years (because the structural deficit proved bigger than expected) in about 2012 - at which point labour criticised him... They continued to criticise cuts. In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
Oh sure but that is politics. In government they really wouldn't be doing that differently. Maybe small sums different but the big picture would be much the same.
I think the current Labour election shows that Balls would not have made the same cuts as Osborne - Osborne has not stopped the pace of his departmental cuts, he accepted that for various reasons the deficit reducing date was put back. This was because the economy was not developing the revenue as expected - the structural part of the deficit was bigger. The deficit of course has 2 component parts, revenue and spending. Revenues were lower than expected and so Osborne did not cut further to meet an arbitrary target.
The question is why is Mrs Balls not speaking out, rather than leaving Kendall to take the flak?
Her campaign seems to be focussed on everyone else making mistakes and being the last woman standing. It's leadership Jim, but not as we know it.
I love it when muppets feel they're being sooo clever by including non-voters in the electorate to reduce the vote percentage to 25%
If you can't be arsed to spend five minutes to vote once every five years then your vote doesn't count. There isn't a single voting system in the globe that is proportional to non-voters so don't be a dingbat.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
As simple expedient would seem to be some sort of retirement age. We forcibly retire judges at 70, that would seem to be reasonable for their Lordships. We could pay them a small pension for "their service to a grateful nation" to sweeten the deal with the current incumbents.
Your point about pensions is well made - at the moment since it is a job for life they only need to turn up to get an allowance. The problem with your proposal is that it would not cut costs if they get a pension. Since they are not electorally accountable however I would not bother with such a pension. Minimum 5 year term otherwise retire at 70. As it is, the HoL is another mess left by Labour.
The pension idea was only as a transition benefit for the incumbents, as a equitable replacement for an income they reasonable expected. I was proposing that anyone joining the HoL after the implementation date would not be eligible.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
snip
Balls' hands have been tied over the last 5 years by having an economic incompetent for a boss. The interview with him in the Telegraph today shows the way Labour needs to go. He says by smoothing out the cuts over a longer period of time Osborne has accepted his arguments. Over the 5 year period this argument has the merits of being perfectly plausible, possibly even true. The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
There is an element of truth in that but Osborne extended the period for eliminating the deficit by two years (because the structural deficit proved bigger than expected) in about 2012 - at which point labour criticised him... They continued to criticise cuts. In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
Oh sure but that is politics. In government they really wouldn't be doing that differently. Maybe small sums different but the big picture would be much the same.
I think the current Labour election shows that Balls would not have made the same cuts as Osborne - Osborne has not stopped the pace of his departmental cuts, he accepted that for various reasons the deficit reducing date was put back. This was because the economy was not developing the revenue as expected - the structural part of the deficit was bigger. The deficit of course has 2 component parts, revenue and spending. Revenues were lower than expected and so Osborne did not cut further to meet an arbitrary target.
The question is why is Mrs Balls not speaking out, rather than leaving Kendall to take the flak?
Her campaign seems to be focussed on everyone else making mistakes and being the last woman standing. It's leadership Jim, but not as we know it.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
It rather depends on their testosterone level. I can assure you that the young female is not the be all and end all. There are really beautiful women of a certain age who are far more interesting and alluring.. and... and... and.... etc
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
"On topic - yes it's a disgrace, and I'm left wondering how the SNP will wiggle out of this principle "
They will not wiggle out. Not much good at political strategy are you. The SNP will only allow members to join the HoL when it is at least partly elected.
What political or practical use would it be to the SNP or Scotland to have a handful of members?
That would be far inferior to their current stance of pointing out that the place is stuffed with unionist Scots who are often not merely unelected by Scotland, but actually electorally rejected/defeated, but who still have a role in governing Scotland?
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.>
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
You may want to distribute the advice of Ben Franklin on why older women make better lovers!:
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.>
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
1, 2 and 4 are good points.
3 is not. Switerland's exports - as a percent of GDP are more than 2x ours, and Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by EU countries. Even if there were the most severe restrictions on exports to the EU in place, there would still be massive EU-Switzerland trade.
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.
I think a thread encouraging PBers to share their own industry and professional knowledge of what would happen, for better or worse, if the UK leaves the EU would be interesting.
I have a City background, as London is already the world's leading financial centre, I can't see much upside for the City outside of the EU/EEA. On the downside, to maintain their EU business models fully utilising EU passports, many City firms would need to relocate their Head Offices into another EU state. Over time Dublin, Luxemburg, Frankfurt, Paris and Milan would likely nibble away at the City's dominance. In addition, US and Asian firms would have less incentive to route business through London e.g. HSBC swithering about shifting it's Head Office to Asia.
I have a fair amount of exposure to the finance industry through my work, and I think the City has potential downsides both ways. There is clearly a very strong anti-City attitude from much of the EU, as has been shown on things like the FTT and the bonus caps. The bonus cap has just pushed up base salaries, which is a negative, but what would be really damaging if they go through with regulating base salaries too. That would certainly harm the City's competitiveness with New York and Hong Kong. It's particularly worrying now that the Eurozone is agreeing a bloc position before EU wide votes.
The main argument I've heard against leaving when it comes to the finance industry is that the Eurozone could somehow pass rules to demand stuff be based inside the EU. I would like to hear this argument in detail: the US tried to stop London getting a dollar trade, and they failed miserably.
Slow pbCOM Saturday- has anyone here been to any gigs recently? be interesting to know how with it the pb fraternity is.
I don't even got off the starting blocks on the "with it" scale. I wasn't with it in my 20s The last gig I went to was Marillion "Clutching at Straws" 28 years ago
The Ed Balls piece is a really good read and reflects well on him and indeed Osborne in a small part of the piece.
I did speculate on here a few times was there an unwritten tactic or incentive for both to work with the whole 'too far too fast' attack as suiting both sides and a way to spin to international investors.. I wonder if that will ever be shown as something more than co-incidence.
Is there a Mark Reckless post-election rejection piece out there too - now that would challenge me....
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
I've had some old blokes ask me out and I'm a bit embarrassed for them tbh - I'd have next to nothing in common with anyone 25+ really (and don't find them that attractive tbh). As for men, a lot of men get kudos from other men for dating younger women, so I doubt they feel much embarrassment. The only ones likely to be critical are other women, and they aren't really interested much in their opinions.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.>
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
It would be good to see a detailed examination of the trade deals places like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Canada and Australia that have been signed, and whether they would work for the UK.
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.>
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
There's little doubt that Britain would maintain free trade with the EU.
The real problems for the no side will be 1. short-term threat of diminution of product regulation, environmental and labour law; 2. long-term threat of a return to trade protectionism to aid special interest groups, and a return to state aid; 3. loss of British influence over policy of its nearest neighbours and more generally in any international matters involving USA/China etc. where the EU suffices as a partner.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
Is your friend good-looking? (And is this Italy, where culturally....things after a bit different).
Online, I've heard men claim it's mother nature for them to look to procreate with younger women!
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
I would be surprised if the referendum is fought by the in side on trade. It will be about British influence and above all eliciting the risk aversion that won the 2014 referendum. Meanwhile out will talk about Norway and Switzerland, but it will be like "but it was a once in a generation referendum" - it's a correct argument in an undergraduate debate sense but nobody on the other side will care.
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
I've had some old blokes ask me out and I'm a bit embarrassed for them tbh - I'd have next to nothing in common with anyone 25+ really (and don't find them that attractive tbh). As for men, a lot of men get kudos from other men for dating younger women, so I doubt they feel much embarrassment. The only ones likely to be critical are other women, and they aren't really interested much in their opinions.
Also, Apopalypse- alot of men find other men who date much younger women pathetic and ridiculous, and just a little bit creepy too. You cannot help but feel sorry for the girls too.
"On topic - yes it's a disgrace, and I'm left wondering how the SNP will wiggle out of this principle "
They will not wiggle out. Not much good at political strategy are you. The SNP will only allow members to join the HoL when it is at least partly elected.
What political or practical use would it be to the SNP or Scotland to have a handful of members?
That would be far inferior to their current stance of pointing out that the place is stuffed with unionist Scots who are often not merely unelected by Scotland, but actually electorally rejected/defeated, but who still have a role in governing Scotland?
They wriggled out of not voting on English-only matters by pledging to vote against the English fox hunting law being made the same as the existing Scottish fox hunting law. So SNP principles are worth as much as a wet piece of toilet paper.
Unsurprisingly, @SeanT has quite strong views on this - he thinks that men are programmed to lust after nubile females - and IIRC ones in their teens and twenties as they're at their most fertile/highest chance of bearing their offspring.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
Is your friend good-looking? (And is this Italy, where culturally....things after a bit different).
Online, I've heard men claim it's mother nature for them to look to procreate with younger women!
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
There is certainly a cultural aspect. In this part of the world, where a woman has next to no come back on a man if he makes her pregnant, and where young men on the whole tend as a result to play the field outrageously. There would seem to be a rapid movement toward young women being more interested in middle age men, who they hope will be more responsible (and I assume better providers). It's very odd, when I first came here fifteen or so years ago you couldn't even walk down the street with your date without two or three aunties following you as chaperones a few yards behind you!
The main case that the eurosceptics should make is how EU trade could be maintained, and expanded to other non-EU countries. If they can take away the pro-EU arguments on trade, that weakens the In side a lot. Someone should do an analysis of what a bilateral agreement with the EU should look like, and what the other top five trade deals would be. It would be very interesting to read some expert views on this.>
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
There's little doubt that Britain would maintain free trade with the EU.
The real problems for the no side will be 1. short-term threat of diminution of product regulation, environmental and labour law; 2. long-term threat of a return to trade protectionism to aid special interest groups, and a return to state aid; 3. loss of British influence over policy of its nearest neighbours and more generally in any international matters involving USA/China etc. where the EU suffices as a partner.
If the reduction in product regulation is to get rid of a lot of the silly stuff about Feta having to be marketed as "Greek style salad cheese", then there shouldn't be too many worries. I also can't see how much influence over EU policy we will lose seeing that we can't even enforce a previous agreement we had signed on not spending from the EFSM. It seems like we lost all our influence in the EU a long time ago. The last time we won a big concession it was under Thatcher. Maybe Cameron will change that.
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
Patti is so messed up, isn't she!
(the answer is to do with genetics: men see a woman in their 20s as at her peak fertility; women see an older man as best able to provide for and protect her offspring)
It would be good to see a detailed examination of the trade deals places like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Canada and Australia that have been signed, and whether they would work for the UK.
The free trade deals signed by the EFTA countries (Norway, Iceland, and errr... that's about it) overlap almost exactly with those signed by the EU. The exceptions are Canada, where EFTA has signed one, but the EU's is still in process (although it will be ratified fairly shortly), and the GCC (the Gulf Cooperation Council) where negotiations appear to be stalled.
I don't think the "other free trade agreements" is a particularly persuasive argument for leaving the EU, nor do I think "we need to be in the EU to negotiate good trade deals" is a particularly good argument for staying in. If you look at the World Bank data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS), the weighted average tariff rate we suffer is 1.0%, which is slightly better than the 1.5% that the US does.
Realistically, in the EU, out the EU, we'll trade on roughly the same terms we do now with pretty much anyone in the world. If anything, this is a small argument in favour of leaving: it's not so scary being a Switzerland or a Norway.
In fact the only argument - from a trade basis - that makes sense in terms of staying in the EU is that Australia and New Zealand (for example) when they signed up the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade deals had to agree to be bound by the US ISDS mechansim (investor state dispute settlement system). This means that (largely US) companies get to sue governments, on the basis that local laws discriminate against them. So, the Quebec government was forced to go back on democratically passed laws prohibiting the use of certain pesticides and herbicides, as they were adjudged to discriminate against American companies.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
Is your friend good-looking? (And is this Italy, where culturally....things after a bit different).
Online, I've heard men claim it's mother nature for them to look to procreate with younger women!
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
I think a lot of men might check out or comment women younger than they are, but most are sensible enough to only date a few years outside their own age. People get more mature with every decade, and it is tiring to deal with the stridency of recent graduates.
"On topic - yes it's a disgrace, and I'm left wondering how the SNP will wiggle out of this principle "
They will not wiggle out. Not much good at political strategy are you. The SNP will only allow members to join the HoL when it is at least partly elected.
What political or practical use would it be to the SNP or Scotland to have a handful of members?
That would be far inferior to their current stance of pointing out that the place is stuffed with unionist Scots who are often not merely unelected by Scotland, but actually electorally rejected/defeated, but who still have a role in governing Scotland?
They wriggled out of not voting on English-only matters by pledging to vote against the English fox hunting law being made the same as the existing Scottish fox hunting law. So SNP principles are worth as much as a wet piece of toilet paper.
I think SNP's current party regulation is that becoming a member of the H of L would result in automatic expulsion from the party.
I'm more concerned about crusty old male English Bishops for UK laws !!
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
Is your friend good-looking? (And is this Italy, where culturally....things after a bit different).
Online, I've heard men claim it's mother nature for them to look to procreate with younger women!
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
@Appocalypse- I wouldn't say he's good looking (he looks a bit like Sylvester Stallone), but he is charming, and wears a suit well and pretty loaded, very generous, and British.
Italian men are a parody. My Italian wife is very good looking, and striking- and coming to Italy, I have always had to cope with blokes staring at her. And they stare, I mean openly stare, at her bum when she walks past. This is something you don't even notice in the UK. I can see why my wife ended up with an English bloke.
She really is - always the bridesmaid and never the bride.
Some of her millionaires are truly hilariously self-obsessed or just WTF? I'm amazed Sex Toy Dave finally got hitched - who on Earth has a pole in their bedroom? He was such a mother-pecked nerd too.
One of my many guilty pulp TV pleasures is Millionaire Matchmaker on ITVBe. Almost all the millionaires are men in their 45+ and almost all the nubile lovlies are women and men in their 20s or early 30s.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
Patti is so messed up, isn't she!
(the answer is to do with genetics: men see a woman in their 20s as at her peak fertility; women see an older man as best able to provide for and protect her offspring)
In many societies such as Pakistan and India it's considered normal for men in their 40s and 50s (or even older) to marry very young women. How does that fit in with your theory?
Depends. For me personally, I consider anyone over 35+ the older generation. I know quite a few of my friends do as well.
I had a friend who moved to New York in 1980 in his early twenties - in those days the sexiest age was mid-thirties- of course by the time he got to his mid-thirties everyone was lusting after the early twenties......
Haven't blokes always lusted after young early 20s women?
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
My very good friend is in his mid 40's, and following a breakup, is back on the town so to speak. He claims it has never been easier for him to pick up younger women, often in their twenties.
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
Comments
On life expectancy: I wonder how tortoises do with getting through several owners.
Via Guido.
We have the new Laurie Penny.
Abby T is the 'yes I did invent #milifandom and I demand you all take me seriously' one.
*+17 literary points to anyone who gets that slightly obscure reference.
The gap between a Balls led Labour party and an Osborne led one would be pretty small in economic terms. People might complain that they were not being given a choice but that's because TINA is still the only game in town.
'Correct and Scottish MPs have nothing to do anyway.'
With the additional powers going to Scotland 20 MP's would be plenty.
A Thelma and Louise finale alternative, but still.
If only life always worked out that well.
Not to mention, dogs do suffer accidents, get ill or even run off.
Would the site be interested in a guest piece on the London Mayoralty (obviously don't know what else is in the pipeline)? If not I'll publish it elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/BanTheBBC/status/627228363011268608
https://twitter.com/twcuddleston/status/627229488418566144
You had me worried for a minute. Thought I'd been trolled by Guido and it had got past the checks.
IMO one of the problems of the goonish left is that it is impossible for everyone, including themselves, to distinguish ridiculous satire from the ridiculous real thing.
The claim is the usual post-embarrassment "it was a joke". But that doesn't matter - who can tell the difference?
I did enjoy the use of 'ableist', though. One hopes the dear never visits Yorkshire. One fears being called 'love' by total strangers would trigger severe stress.
Now, my memory serves you don't have a mobile 'phone so that won't work for you. However, given your life as a literary bon viveur might I suggest a pocket watch would be more "you" than a common or garden wrist watch. If you are prepared to entertain the idea than I think you could do worse than look at Amazon they have some very nice time pieces on offer and some at very reasonable prices.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pocket-Fob-Watches-Hand-Driven/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n:199484031,p_n_feature_browse-bin:199515031
Have young people not got experiences? I'm 33 are you saying I'm totally inexperienced? What experience do the over-45's have on paying tuition fees for instance? When I went to university I had to pay fees, how many in your model of the Lords would have accumulated that experience?
By cutting out half the population you limit the experiences that are accumulated, you don't expand them.
Tangentially, this reminded me of FPT discussion re BrassEye - and well known celebs became so cringingly embroiled. I mean really - Phil Collins wearing a Nonce Sense t-shirt?
EDIT Makes the SNP's Named Person policy look like it in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU
You're right I have no mobile, they being the work of Satan. On the computer and when watching TV it's not much of an issue, but I have lost track of time when reading/on the PS4.
Edited extra bit: mind you, I take off my watch half the time anyway. A concern is that a pocket watch and t-shirt/jeans is not a good look, I think.
For the sake of fairness and balance, there clearly ought to be some new UKIP peers, rather than yet more Tory ones.
I don´t know why Tory and Labour supporters are now complaining about the present set-up. They had their chance to reform it in the last Parliament, and they chickened out of it.
I'm still flabbergasted that so many intelligent young people can be so transparently stupid.
There's no shortage of sensibles around, but they tend to be people earning a living for themselves rather than Oxbridge dreamers about journalism dumped into Min Wage Internships in charities.
(Re: My last para - should note that Abby is still a schoolgirl).
Maybe the Right should lighten up? There's a reason they say right-wing people aren't really funny, after all....
....
Am I the older generation now?
The minimum we could do is make one South East, and then separate off East Anglia. But what would be much better, and encourage more local independents, would be to have STV on a county basis.
No, because your 25% point is a red herring.
Even in Scotland the SNP achieved only 35% of the registered vote.
2010 was higher because of 2 parties.
Tony Blair in 2005 was 21%.
2001 was 24%.
1997 was 30%.
1992 was 33%.
Even 1951 was only 36%.
It's a normal type of number for that metric in our system.
If you want to compare with PR, the figure for Angular Merkel in 2013 was 29%, though that inflates to a larger number in coalition.
I agree that UKIP needs more peers, though.
Wait until you turn 30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsokGIeQFFI
The waistcoat is a magnificent garment, looks nice with all sorts of other clothing from a natty pin-stripe suit for the City to an open neck shirt and jeans for just about anywhere else. Most importantly one doesn't take off a waistcoat in the way one does a jacket and it has pockets. Usually four of them all ideally placed to hold life's essentials that otherwise get mislaid, train/bus tickets, a small supply of pound coins (for tips, you understand), fag lighter, and pocket watch. Just look at pictures of the great men of the 20th century (e.g Hardy, Churchill, De Salis, Francis Rossi) you'll see them in a waistcoat like as not.
In the recent budget he did extend it again by one year, and here he probably has decided to ease the pace, however the fact remains that he has also committed to extra defence and NHS spending which inevitably would put back the date. However the fact is that over this parliament we are looking at 37 billion in cuts. Labour will scream blue murder over every £ of them.
Minimum 5 year term otherwise retire at 70.
As it is, the HoL is another mess left by Labour.
You cite the 25% figure neglect the fact the Lib Dems received about 4% of the vote of the electorate which roughly translates as 3 men and a dog in each constituency as an excuse to ignore the Salisbury-Addison convention.
You would have thought the humiliation the Lib Dems experienced in May would give you some humility. But no.
Dave was right to declare Lib Dem delenda est prior to the election.
Create 500 new Tory peers Dave, the reactions will be great.
I filled in an interesting Yougov survey this morning. One or two questions on aspiration surprised me.
They asked what I wanted to be when I was eleven (a footballer, and this was one of the options), and did I achieve it (no, I had to make do with being a scientist). There then followed a list of about 15 reasons for my failure. Yet I had to write in the real reason - I wasn't good enough.
This is no longer an option, it seems. I should have put it down to poor family circumstances, the lack of family contacts, the wrong schooling, a deprived upbringing or whatever.
Sometimes I feel very old.
I think a thread encouraging PBers to share their own industry and professional knowledge of what would happen, for better or worse, if the UK leaves the EU would be interesting.
I have a City background, as London is already the world's leading financial centre, I can't see much upside for the City outside of the EU/EEA. On the downside, to maintain their EU business models fully utilising EU passports, many City firms would need to relocate their Head Offices into another EU state. Over time Dublin, Luxemburg, Frankfurt, Paris and Milan would likely nibble away at the City's dominance. In addition, US and Asian firms would have less incentive to route business through London e.g. HSBC swithering about shifting it's Head Office to Asia.
The question is why is Mrs Balls not speaking out, rather than leaving Kendall to take the flak?
Tories have the chance to live up to the One Nation rhetoric by tossing a few crumbs to UKIP.
If you can't be arsed to spend five minutes to vote once every five years then your vote doesn't count. There isn't a single voting system in the globe that is proportional to non-voters so don't be a dingbat.
Whether they get them though, is another matter.
I can't go out with younger men in public, I feel like their mum. The last time was when I was late 30s with a late 20-something gentleman. Honestly, I felt embarrassed the entire time. How men don't die of embarrassment, but see a trophy is beyond me.
"On topic - yes it's a disgrace, and I'm left wondering how the SNP will wiggle out of this principle "
They will not wiggle out. Not much good at political strategy are you. The SNP will only allow members to join the HoL when it is at least partly elected.
What political or practical use would it be to the SNP or Scotland to have a handful of members?
That would be far inferior to their current stance of pointing out that the place is stuffed with unionist Scots who are often not merely unelected by Scotland, but actually electorally rejected/defeated, but who still have a role in governing Scotland?
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about leaving the EU though. Listen to Mr Hannan's latest missive.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5IxebGGJfg). The key points of which are.
1. Leaving the political institutions of the EU does not mean leaving the internal market. No one in Brussels is suggesting such a thing, its a fabrication of British Europhiles.
2. We would no long have a say in the formation of EU regulations, but neither would we be bound by them except when selling into a EU market, but this is hardly news, if we sell into th e Japanese market we have to meet Japanese regulations, and critically not when selling to our own domestic market.
3. Swiss exports per capita to the EU as an EFTA country are 4.5x as much as UK exports per capita to the EU as an EU member. To the extent that the Swiss campaign to join the EU has thrown in the towel.
4. The Swiss signed a free trade deal with China six months ago, the EU deal has been put back over the horizon as being too difficult to meet the interests of all concerned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress
3 is not. Switerland's exports - as a percent of GDP are more than 2x ours, and Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by EU countries. Even if there were the most severe restrictions on exports to the EU in place, there would still be massive EU-Switzerland trade.
I have a City background, as London is already the world's leading financial centre, I can't see much upside for the City outside of the EU/EEA. On the downside, to maintain their EU business models fully utilising EU passports, many City firms would need to relocate their Head Offices into another EU state. Over time Dublin, Luxemburg, Frankfurt, Paris and Milan would likely nibble away at the City's dominance. In addition, US and Asian firms would have less incentive to route business through London e.g. HSBC swithering about shifting it's Head Office to Asia.
I have a fair amount of exposure to the finance industry through my work, and I think the City has potential downsides both ways. There is clearly a very strong anti-City attitude from much of the EU, as has been shown on things like the FTT and the bonus caps. The bonus cap has just pushed up base salaries, which is a negative, but what would be really damaging if they go through with regulating base salaries too. That would certainly harm the City's competitiveness with New York and Hong Kong. It's particularly worrying now that the Eurozone is agreeing a bloc position before EU wide votes.
The main argument I've heard against leaving when it comes to the finance industry is that the Eurozone could somehow pass rules to demand stuff be based inside the EU. I would like to hear this argument in detail: the US tried to stop London getting a dollar trade, and they failed miserably.
"Once in a generation"
I did speculate on here a few times was there an unwritten tactic or incentive for both to work with the whole 'too far too fast' attack as suiting both sides and a way to spin to international investors.. I wonder if that will ever be shown as something more than co-incidence.
Is there a Mark Reckless post-election rejection piece out there too - now that would challenge me....
For me, a more than ten year age gap is too much. I'd be embarrassed (like Plato) to be seen out to be honest, and I think mother nature programmes us to find prospective partners of a similar age attractive as we get older. How else do we stay and age together?
The real problems for the no side will be 1. short-term threat of diminution of product regulation, environmental and labour law; 2. long-term threat of a return to trade protectionism to aid special interest groups, and a return to state aid; 3. loss of British influence over policy of its nearest neighbours and more generally in any international matters involving USA/China etc. where the EU suffices as a partner.
Online, I've heard men claim it's mother nature for them to look to procreate with younger women!
I think that most men (it seems) with some exceptions, would get with a younger woman, someone of my age perhaps (I'm 21). I'd say most women of my age, however are interested in men around their own age. When looking at marriage stats, most people get with those around their same age - on average 2-3 years/4-5 age difference. Age gap relationships are generally rare - usually because the men who are most likely to be successful pursuing this are either good-looking, rich or both, I suspect - as well as the fact these kind of relationships have quite a high divorce rate.
(the answer is to do with genetics: men see a woman in their 20s as at her peak fertility; women see an older man as best able to provide for and protect her offspring)
I don't think the "other free trade agreements" is a particularly persuasive argument for leaving the EU, nor do I think "we need to be in the EU to negotiate good trade deals" is a particularly good argument for staying in. If you look at the World Bank data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS), the weighted average tariff rate we suffer is 1.0%, which is slightly better than the 1.5% that the US does.
Realistically, in the EU, out the EU, we'll trade on roughly the same terms we do now with pretty much anyone in the world. If anything, this is a small argument in favour of leaving: it's not so scary being a Switzerland or a Norway.
In fact the only argument - from a trade basis - that makes sense in terms of staying in the EU is that Australia and New Zealand (for example) when they signed up the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade deals had to agree to be bound by the US ISDS mechansim (investor state dispute settlement system). This means that (largely US) companies get to sue governments, on the basis that local laws discriminate against them. So, the Quebec government was forced to go back on democratically passed laws prohibiting the use of certain pesticides and herbicides, as they were adjudged to discriminate against American companies.
I'm more concerned about crusty old male English Bishops for UK laws !!
Italian men are a parody. My Italian wife is very good looking, and striking- and coming to Italy, I have always had to cope with blokes staring at her. And they stare, I mean openly stare, at her bum when she walks past. This is something you don't even notice in the UK.
I can see why my wife ended up with an English bloke.
Some of her millionaires are truly hilariously self-obsessed or just WTF? I'm amazed Sex Toy Dave finally got hitched - who on Earth has a pole in their bedroom? He was such a mother-pecked nerd too.