If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
1 Canada Square = Canary Wharf 20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie 30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin 32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard 110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower 122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater
Of these, I believe The Shard and Heron Tower are official.
122 Leadenhall St has the official name "the Leadenhall Building".
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).
London planners seem determined to ruin the London skyline.
What's wrong with the Skyline always evolving? New York hasn't been ruined by many skyscrapers much bigger than we have. Quite frankly with limited land availability in London I don't get why we don't try to rival New York in this way like in many others.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?
It's a reasonable question.
Personally I believe that our representatives have the freedom to do what they believe is in our interests within the scope of their delegated rights
In my view the nature of our relationship with the EU has developed in such a manner that they are acting outside of the scope of their authority and hence they need to seek the sanction of the ultimate authority - the electorate - in order to approve the new arrangements
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
That's not a mandate.
We live in a representative democracy.
A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children
Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?
It's a reasonable question.
Personally I believe that our representatives have the freedom to do what they believe is in our interests within the scope of their delegated rights
In my view the nature of our relationship with the EU has developed in such a manner that they are acting outside of the scope of their authority and hence they need to seek the sanction of the ultimate authority - the electorate - in order to approve the new arrangements
Especially considering we mandated that they consult us in a referendum back in May.
It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in. Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu
I think that's absolutely right.
We may be coming to the end of the oil age.
The Stone age did not end because they ran out of stone.
The Bronze age did not end because they ran out of Bronze
The Iron Age did not end because they ran out of Iron.
and
The Hydrocarbon age will not end because we run out of Hydrocarbons.
It will end when we invent/discover something better, which may well be Wind and/or solar.
I just hope we don't tax and regulate are selves back to the stone age, in a misguided attempt to get us to where we will go anyway.
I'd love to see the big FART age (WIND) inaugurated!
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
It's all over so far as I am concerned. I wanted to be a wavourer but even if Dave gets all 4 "buckets" in their entirety, which it is obvious he won't, or even anywhere near, I would vote to leave. Such paucity of ambition.
Even if we add Plaid Cymru to the list @not_on_fire gave the parties only add up to 49.1% well below Tory plus UKIP. Even adding on Sinn Fein it is 49.4% which is still below Tory plus UKIP
It wouldn't matter if the claim was true, especially since this wasn't in all their manifestos. But it's actually false. That's laughably weak.
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
Sounds right. The political problem for politicians who don't actually care and merely want votes (which on THIS issue is I suspect a non-trivial proportion) is that the people who hate it are the ones who will change votes over it, and the ones who mildly like it, though numerous, will mostly vote as usual.
Anecdote department: in greenish mode I once signed an EDM opposing airport expansion and urging that the resources be used on improving the Chunnel link etc. A proper Commons vote (nothing decisive, just a motion on the general principle) then came up, and Greenpeace then organised an email bombardment of the MPs who had backed their line to tell us to keep to their promises. Emails came in round the clock every few seconds, massively disrupting our work and stopping genuine constituents from getting through. I complained, pointing out that I was on their side. They said too bad, we want to make sure you stay that way.
So I said bugger off, I won't be blackmailed: I'm now going to vote FOR expansion, just to make the point of how bloody counter-productive your campaign method is. And I did.
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
THe whole thing is a pre-planned charade !
I should hope so. The bulk of the negotiations happened before the General Election I'm convinced just in case we won. Now it's dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
Sounds right. The political problem for politicians who don't actually care and merely want votes (which on THIS issue is I suspect a non-trivial proportion) is that the people who hate it are the ones who will change votes over it, and the ones who mildly like it, though numerous, will mostly vote as usual.
Anecdote department: in greenish mode I once signed an EDM opposing airport expansion and urging that the resources be used on improving the Chunnel link etc. A proper Commons vote (nothing decisive, just a motion on the general principle) then came up, and Greenpeace then organised an email bombardment of the MPs who had backed their line to tell us to keep to their promises. Emails came in round the clock every few seconds, massively disrupting our work and stopping genuine constituents from getting through. I complained, pointing out that I was on their side. They said too bad, we want to make sure you stay that way.
So I said bugger off, I won't be blackmailed: I'm now going to vote FOR expansion, just to make the point of how bloody counter-productive your campaign method is. And I did.
Completely OT. 'Carol'. Set in 1952. Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett become lovers. The charm of 'Brief Encounter' with the panache of 'Un homme et Une femme' set in an Edward Hopper landscape. My film of the year by a distance
Even if we add Plaid Cymru to the list @not_on_fire gave the parties only add up to 49.1% well below Tory plus UKIP. Even adding on Sinn Fein it is 49.4% which is still below Tory plus UKIP
It wouldn't matter if the claim was true, especially since this wasn't in all their manifestos. But it's actually false. That's laughably weak.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Are you sure? The DUP were against in 2012 and 2014.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
And apparently slim wins don't count as proper mandates for big changes anyway, when one is just on the wrong side of them at any rate, so even if all the other side support that policy and all their supporters do too, it would not count as an actual 'mandate' to some.
Re the EU referendum. Will there be an actual treaty change on whatever bits Cameron wins? Otherwise, what is to stop the ECJ, European Parliament, future non Tory government seeking to undermine it all?
Re the EU referendum. Will there be an actual treaty change on whatever bits Cameron wins? Otherwise, what is to stop the ECJ, European Parliament, future non Tory government seeking to undermine it all?
That is key. The ECJ have form for engaging in judicial activism so safeguards against scope creep are crucial.
I expect the EU will deal with Britain's requests as soon as possible, no ifs, no buts. They'll make cast iron guarantees to us, which they'll promise to keep.
I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)
Sounds right. The political problem for politicians who don't actually care and merely want votes (which on THIS issue is I suspect a non-trivial proportion) is that the people who hate it are the ones who will change votes over it, and the ones who mildly like it, though numerous, will mostly vote as usual.
Anecdote department: in greenish mode I once signed an EDM opposing airport expansion and urging that the resources be used on improving the Chunnel link etc. A proper Commons vote (nothing decisive, just a motion on the general principle) then came up, and Greenpeace then organised an email bombardment of the MPs who had backed their line to tell us to keep to their promises. Emails came in round the clock every few seconds, massively disrupting our work and stopping genuine constituents from getting through. I complained, pointing out that I was on their side. They said too bad, we want to make sure you stay that way.
So I said bugger off, I won't be blackmailed: I'm now going to vote FOR expansion, just to make the point of how bloody counter-productive your campaign method is. And I did.
Interesting. Would you recommend a snail mail letter over an email, in general, as a way of asking one's MP to follow one's concerns?
I expect the EU will deal with Britain's requests as soon as possible, no ifs, no buts. They'll make cast iron guarantees to us, which they'll promise to keep.
It all strikes me that it will be like Churchill's percentages agreement with Stalin.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
OK got the numbers for GB
Tory: 37.7% UKIP: 12.9%
Total: 50.6%
so gust over half of GB votes
But clearly everyone who voted for the government was misled by the evull Tuuries.
Evangelicals, they make half of the voters in Iowa and are notoriously undeciders (Some say they behave like a flock, of sheep), they switch from one flavour to another just like that, they are the ones primary responsible for all the flavours of the month in 2012 and the rollercoaster that year.
In 2012 they literally decided on the last moment, in a pastors convention a couple of days before the caucuses, that they were going to vote Santorum and he went from 2% to win Iowa.
Interesting. Would you recommend a snail mail letter over an email, in general, as a way of asking one's MP to follow one's concerns?
In general yes. Techie MPs like me tended to deal personally with all emails the same day and take longer to get round to the long handwritten screeds, but most MPs delegate email to staff, who weed out emails that they think not worth bothering the boss with. By contrast, all written letters get an answer.
But the main thing is that if your MP says he'll vote the way you want, don't respond by hassling him to death - just say "Thanks, appreciated". And even if he's not going to, you probably won't change his mind by being a pain in the bum - a polite plea to think again has a better chance.
"We have begun increasing the number of non politically engaged people on the panel"
But if they do that - they then send them a voting poll and they reply even though they wouldn't bother to go to polling station (and may not be registered).
Surely it is dead simple. If X% of votes at the last GE were cast by 18 to 24s then in any poll ensure that X% of the sample are 18 to 24.
The whole thing was blindingly obvious - several people including myself posted repeatedly before GE 2015 that the number of 18 to 24s in YouGov polls had to be too high - they were assuming turnout (of the 18 to 24 population) almost identical to over 60s which couldn't possibly be right.
Now they appear to be overcomplicating it - keep it simple.
I do hope that Ted Cruz has a decent run. We could explore interesting questions about what constitutes a natural-born citizen. I don't think such questions have been looked at in any detail for a while, have they?
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
Can't the gov just repeal the Single European Act and see how our partners react?
Yes. It's equivalent to sleeping with your partner's sister to see how your partner will react. "Not in a way conducive to a harmonious outcome" is a fair guess.
Can't the gov just repeal the Single European Act and see how our partners react?
Yes. It's equivalent to sleeping with your partner's sister to see how your partner will react. "Not in a way conducive to a harmonious outcome" is a fair guess.
Keeping it to the spirit of the thread, Jeb Bush (remember him, he was the frontrunner once) has released a 15 minute documentary about himself, reeks of boredom:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvpNa1-jIUo
Compare it to the video of doomed Pawlenty (directed by Micheal Bay):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
And the GREATEST WORST political ad in HISTORY, Governor of California Jerry Brown 1980 ,directed by Francis Ford Coppola !!!, featuring, among other things, actual people oozing out of the Governor's collar:
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support
Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?
Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
THe whole thing is a pre-planned charade !
Obviously.
Do you really believe that it was planned that David Cameron would get so obviously slapped down within six hours of publishing his four points?
The fact is that the EU is 28 nations. Everyone has to agree. Everyone has different red lines and competences and interests.
Given any substantive changes will require treaty change (albeit I believe a codicil is possible), I can't see how you can possibly get everyone on-board rapidly, unless it is so vague as to be meaningless.
Every other country is answerable to its voters. And each will hope to use the UK's desires for changes, to lobby for their own changes: "Sure, we'll accept the UK's desires for a veto on legislation that affects the City... but only if we get this in return..."
It only takes one hold out to scupper the renegotiation.
Therefore, I would bet on no "heads of terms" - whatever Dave or Tusk or Merkel wants - before early 2017 at the earliest.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
OK got the numbers for GB
Tory: 37.7% UKIP: 12.9%
Total: 50.6%
so gust over half of GB votes
When it comes to arguments about mandates, somehow Tory and UKIP voters don't count.
Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?
THe whole thing is a pre-planned charade !
Obviously.
Do you really believe that it was planned that David Cameron would get so obviously slapped down within six hours of publishing his four points?
The fact is that the EU is 28 nations. Everyone has to agree. Everyone has different red lines and competences and interests.
Given any substantive changes will require treaty change (albeit I believe a codicil is possible), I can't see how you can possibly get everyone on-board rapidly, unless it is so vague as to be meaningless.
Every other country is answerable to its voters. And each will hope to use the UK's desires for changes, to lobby for their own changes: "Sure, we'll accept the UK's desires for a veto on legislation that affects the City... but only if we get this in return..."
It only takes one hold out to scupper the renegotiation.
Therefore, I would bet on no "heads of terms" - whatever Dave or Tusk or Merkel wants - before early 2017 at the earliest.
I think this is a case of " you grunt, i'll groan" as Alistair Meeks put it.
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support
Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?
Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.
I believe the new plan is to lower it to 16 months. "Old enough to independently feed, old enough to vote" is the slogan.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.
This ought to have a name too.
The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).
London planners seem determined to ruin the London skyline.
What's wrong with the Skyline always evolving? New York hasn't been ruined by many skyscrapers much bigger than we have. Quite frankly with limited land availability in London I don't get why we don't try to rival New York in this way like in many others.
Hello I have no problem with the London skyline evolving, but not with miserable buildings.
It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.
Interesting. Would you recommend a snail mail letter over an email, in general, as a way of asking one's MP to follow one's concerns?
In general yes. Techie MPs like me tended to deal personally with all emails the same day and take longer to get round to the long handwritten screeds, but most MPs delegate email to staff, who weed out emails that they think not worth bothering the boss with. By contrast, all written letters get an answer.
But the main thing is that if your MP says he'll vote the way you want, don't respond by hassling him to death - just say "Thanks, appreciated". And even if he's not going to, you probably won't change his mind by being a pain in the bum - a polite plea to think again has a better chance.
Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.
Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.
Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support
Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?
Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.
I believe the new plan is to lower it to 16 months. "Old enough to independently feed, old enough to vote" is the slogan.
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?) (3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on. (4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.
But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.
It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.
Worrying perhaps but is it surprising? Pollsters aim to fix sampling errors by weighting. This is fine until various subsamples start to drift apart in how they respond. Once that happens, your weights are all wrong.
David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.
Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.
Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.
If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.
There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.
Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!
Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
OK got the numbers for GB
Tory: 37.7% UKIP: 12.9%
Total: 50.6%
so gust over half of GB votes
When it comes to arguments about mandates, somehow Tory and UKIP voters don't count.
I found Lefties shut up fairly quickly after the election when they cried for PR, and I pointed out that in that case we'd prob have a Tory government propped up by UKIP.
They've moved on now to things like discouraging the old to vote, on the basis it's selfish given their remaining time on the earth, and advocating the enfranchisement of the very young.
The pb Cameronites do make me chuckle, if the Tories were led by a eurosceptic Ukip wouldn't exist and they would govern in perpetuity, as it is they spend their time grinding their teeth and throwing shite at Corbyn and Farage. Be careful what you wish for.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
The only conclusion I can come to is that she wanted to big up the messages she was receiving, and just never expected the writer to (a) notice (b) break anonymity to prove her wrong.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
Rusty has come forward. I believe he is something along the lines of a sound engineer from Leicester.
It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.
Not quite. They had the wrong sort of young people in their sample. The young people they had were enthusiastically politically engaged, (and were consequently more likely to vote Labour). They're trying to fix it by recruiting less-politically engaged youth to their panel.
If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.
It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.
Pretty sure that used to be the headquarters of Commercial Union (now Aviva). As a kid I was fascinated by the name, as all my Dad's letters seemed to come from there (he worked as a surveyor for CU)...
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
The delete button is a friend not a foe. Why dig a bigger hole for herself by adding more to a ridiculous response.
The pb Cameronites do make me chuckle, if the Tories were led by a eurosceptic Ukip wouldn't exist and they would govern in perpetuity, as it is they spend their time grinding their teeth and throwing shite at Corbyn and Farage. Be careful what you wish for.
Like the perpetual rule of Prime Minister Duncan Smith? If only we could go back to that level of success *rolleyes*
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
The delete button is a friend not a foe. Why dig a bigger hole for herself by adding more to a ridiculous response.
She did delete it. People asked for an explanation and screenshots were taken.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
Rusty has come forward. I believe he is something along the lines of a sound engineer from Leicester.
As soon as he came forward she deleted it. How could that lead to a by election exactly.
Blame the victim mentality at its worst. As much as I despise Corbyn I won't send him death threats.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
For obvious reasons I tend to sympathise with MPs who get hate mail. But the mail she published and then embellished was pretty mild compared with many. It would have been more sensible to publish the offending email that she says she took it from.
I will say that the only death threat I ever had was from a local hunt supporter who said he'd kill me if I voted for the hunt ban. Rather endearingly, he gave his name and address, not the action of a cunning psychopath. The police had a word with him and we heard nothing more.
It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.
Yougov in particular, have a real problem in finding enough young people to respond to them. So, they have to massively weight up the numbers who do and they are likely to be unrepresentative. They tend to be very left wing, very europhile, very pro-immigration.
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?) (3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on. (4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.
But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.
To be continued..
My interpretation: (1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we are doing that as you always push us on that. (3) OK ever closer union is not for everyone we can agree to that. The idea of all nations following same path is history now. (4) Not saying yes to that yet but not ruling it out. If you drop one we will agree to this do we have a deal?
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?) (3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on. (4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.
But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.
To be continued..
My interpretation: (1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto (2) Yes, we are doing that as you always push us on that. (3) OK ever closer union is not for everyone we can agree to that. The idea of all nations following same path is history now. (4) Not saying yes to that yet but not ruling it out. If you drop one we will agree to this do we have a deal?
Fair enough. I think that amounts to more or less the same thing.
It would be well below Cameron's minimum (very light as it is) demands so I'd count the renegotiation a failure.
Not that that would prevent him proclaiming it as a success.
Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
Rusty has come forward. I believe he is something along the lines of a sound engineer from Leicester.
As soon as he came forward she deleted it. How could that lead to a by election exactly.
Blame the victim mentality at its worst. As much as I despise Corbyn I won't send him death threats.
What she did was dishonest and tarnishes the reputation of politicians even more than it already is. A by-election would allow her constituents to decide if her behaviour was acceptable.
So he agrees a deal will be reached when so many here are saying it won't. Be interesting to see if anyone currently laughing at the notion of us getting this deal actually gives credit if it is won or will the line pivot from "we won't get that" to "it's meaningless anyway". I expect the latter.
What she did was dishonest and tarnishes the reputation of politicians even more than it already is.
I'd welcome a daily by-election but if every misjudgement on twitter lead to one - we'd have alot ^^;
It was a bit rough of her to add the bit he didn't say to the facebook post.... whether that is enough to spark a by election I don't know, but its poor form from an MP
Comments
"He will make an excellent drone!"
Personally I believe that our representatives have the freedom to do what they believe is in our interests within the scope of their delegated rights
In my view the nature of our relationship with the EU has developed in such a manner that they are acting outside of the scope of their authority and hence they need to seek the sanction of the ultimate authority - the electorate - in order to approve the new arrangements
It wouldn't matter if the claim was true, especially since this wasn't in all their manifestos. But it's actually false. That's laughably weak.
@paulwaugh · 17m17 minutes ago
Huge cheers for @CllrJimMcMahon as he arrives at PLP
@paulwaugh · 14m14 minutes ago
Jeremy Corbyn is not at PLP, cos he's still in Paris.
@paulwaugh · 12m12 minutes ago
Andrew Gwynne, campaign manager for Oldham byelection, setting out why Labour won so handsomely.
paulwaugh · 4m4 minutes ago
Very strong support for the Shadow chief whip Rosie Winterton at PLP
Anecdote department: in greenish mode I once signed an EDM opposing airport expansion and urging that the resources be used on improving the Chunnel link etc. A proper Commons vote (nothing decisive, just a motion on the general principle) then came up, and Greenpeace then organised an email bombardment of the MPs who had backed their line to tell us to keep to their promises. Emails came in round the clock every few seconds, massively disrupting our work and stopping genuine constituents from getting through. I complained, pointing out that I was on their side. They said too bad, we want to make sure you stay that way.
So I said bugger off, I won't be blackmailed: I'm now going to vote FOR expansion, just to make the point of how bloody counter-productive your campaign method is. And I did.
Yes.
Will the leaks be more detailed this week?
http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article149696117/Die-Europaeische-Union-ist-in-Gefahr.html
Sensible governance IMO.
And guess what? the answer is 'mehr Europa'
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600283502966345729
Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%
But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%
Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)
It's all so very old fashioned - probably one of the last legacies of the Cold War. We can collectively do better.
They don't care
But surely that would also cost money so would also be deemed a money resolution?
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/673927122784776192
Will there be an actual treaty change on whatever bits Cameron wins?
Otherwise, what is to stop the ECJ, European Parliament, future non Tory government seeking to undermine it all?
That has already been reversed by Commons but still has to go back to the Lords.
Has that been deemed a money resolution?
Don't think any such thing was reported and presumably it's already happened so suspect not. But if not, why not?
Tories + UKIP = 55% across England
So need to establish timing when Speaker makes designation re Money Resolution - possibly wouldn't have happened yet - not sure.
Cruz 24 /+14
Trump 19 /+1
Rubio 17 /+7
Carson 13 /-19
Bush 6/ -2
Paul 4 /+1
Fiorina 3 /-2
Kasich 3 /+1
Christie 2 /+1
Huckabee 2 /0
http://tinyurl.com/prn85tg
Trump has never held the lead in a Monmouth Iowa poll.
Tory: 37.7%
UKIP: 12.9%
Total: 50.6%
so gust over half of GB votes
If Cruz (or Rubio) wins Iowa then does most of the non-Trump vote move to him and he is then clear frontrunner?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/
So their votes don't count. Or something.
In 2012 they literally decided on the last moment, in a pastors convention a couple of days before the caucuses, that they were going to vote Santorum and he went from 2% to win Iowa.
' I don;t know if sand glows in the dark, but we're gonna find out'
But the main thing is that if your MP says he'll vote the way you want, don't respond by hassling him to death - just say "Thanks, appreciated". And even if he's not going to, you probably won't change his mind by being a pain in the bum - a polite plea to think again has a better chance.
But if they do that - they then send them a voting poll and they reply even though they wouldn't bother to go to polling station (and may not be registered).
Surely it is dead simple. If X% of votes at the last GE were cast by 18 to 24s then in any poll ensure that X% of the sample are 18 to 24.
The whole thing was blindingly obvious - several people including myself posted repeatedly before GE 2015 that the number of 18 to 24s in YouGov polls had to be too high - they were assuming turnout (of the 18 to 24 population) almost identical to over 60s which couldn't possibly be right.
Now they appear to be overcomplicating it - keep it simple.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/clark-i-deserve-to-be-horsewhipped-mary-braid-and-rhys-williams-watched-the-media-circus-as-the-1419604.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvpNa1-jIUo
Compare it to the video of doomed Pawlenty (directed by Micheal Bay):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
And the GREATEST WORST political ad in HISTORY, Governor of California Jerry Brown 1980 ,directed by Francis Ford Coppola !!!, featuring, among other things, actual people oozing out of the Governor's collar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9oWOB_8stM
Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.
The fact is that the EU is 28 nations. Everyone has to agree. Everyone has different red lines and competences and interests.
Given any substantive changes will require treaty change (albeit I believe a codicil is possible), I can't see how you can possibly get everyone on-board rapidly, unless it is so vague as to be meaningless.
Every other country is answerable to its voters. And each will hope to use the UK's desires for changes, to lobby for their own changes: "Sure, we'll accept the UK's desires for a veto on legislation that affects the City... but only if we get this in return..."
It only takes one hold out to scupper the renegotiation.
Therefore, I would bet on no "heads of terms" - whatever Dave or Tusk or Merkel wants - before early 2017 at the earliest.
I have no problem with the London skyline evolving, but not with miserable buildings.
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto
(2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?)
(3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on.
(4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.
But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.
To be continued..
They've moved on now to things like discouraging the old to vote, on the basis it's selfish given their remaining time on the earth, and advocating the enfranchisement of the very young.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252
Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?
The only conclusion I can come to is that she wanted to big up the messages she was receiving, and just never expected the writer to (a) notice (b) break anonymity to prove her wrong.
Stupid of her.
Blame the victim mentality at its worst. As much as I despise Corbyn I won't send him death threats.
I will say that the only death threat I ever had was from a local hunt supporter who said he'd kill me if I voted for the hunt ban. Rather endearingly, he gave his name and address, not the action of a cunning psychopath. The police had a word with him and we heard nothing more.
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto
(2) Yes, we are doing that as you always push us on that.
(3) OK ever closer union is not for everyone we can agree to that. The idea of all nations following same path is history now.
(4) Not saying yes to that yet but not ruling it out. If you drop one we will agree to this do we have a deal?
It would be well below Cameron's minimum (very light as it is) demands so I'd count the renegotiation a failure.
Not that that would prevent him proclaiming it as a success.