We explain why the Government, after long, hard negotiations, are recommending to the British people that we should remain a member of the European Community.
We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.
We confidently believe that these better terms can give Britain a New Deal in Europe. A Deal that will help us, help the Commonwealth, and help our partners in Europe.
That is why we are asking you to vote in favour of remaining in the Community.
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I thought that chivalry had been got round earlier than that when the English started using archers in their battles. The archers, being common folk, were not bound by the rules of chivalry and so the English, while, prima facie, still sticking to the rules, had found a clever way round them.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Surely not...
@PaulWheelhouse: @jedi_mummy Yep - SNP SG reopening the bridge early & we've done it deliberately! Quick: get Lord Foulkes a cold towel for his brow! ;-)
Polly has spent many of her articles over the years stating that Labour need to be more left wing. So a lot of her readers back Corbyn and now she thinks they are doomed.... PMSL
Much as I find Polly's Mwaaaah Mwaaaaah Mwaaaaah Cameron Has Gerrymandered The System hysteria amusing (his majority might be 20 or 30 bigger if the LibDems hadn't blocked the very reform to 600 MPs that was in their 2010 Manifesto) it is aimed at poisoning politics further. CCHQ needs to spend some time in the New Year knocking this meme on the head.
They can then expect the new government to behave in exactly the same way.
Erm....were you asleep 1997-2010?
Quango stuffing Lord stuffing Union Money Spin Forces of hell University Chancellorships Postal voting etc etc ad nauseam - a lefty putsch on all of public life
If Cameron is the new Blair he seems to have learned a few of Labour's tricks. I think pre-Blair politics was hard fought but somewhat gentlemanly. Blair politicised everything (actually it was Alastair Campbell - but that is semantics). Shame and honour left the field. It is a naked partisan fight with no honour now. Dave's money, voter registration, boundary ideas are small beer.
Fair point. And the Tories have now escalated by reducing the funds available to their opponents, while at the same time changing voter registration rules and mandating new constituency boundaries that will make it much harder for them to win elections. The one thing I doubt they'll change very much is postal voting as that works to their advantage.
I think they might start to make postal votes available only to those on the disability register, OAPs and expats. I think that would hurt Labour quite badly, "community leaders" would no longer be able to harvest votes as they currently do and the 18 "people" registered to the one bedroom flats in tower hamlets would also become irrelevant.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Well done Nicola for being out fixing the bridge at this time of year..
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Labour lose a lot more voters in ethnic minority areas where "head of households" would sign up their children and wive(s), now with IVR these people have to do it themselves and are less inclined to do it. It also adds a step for young people to vote given that their parents will no longer be able to add them to the household register so that's another hindrance to Labour.
It is still the right thing to do, the antiquated system of having the "head of the household" say whether people in his domain were able to vote was an embarrassment.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Off topic: thanks for your comments on training and Powerpoints. I responded on the previous thread. One day when I make it down to your neck of the woods, assuming I cannot tempt you to dear old London, I would love to chat with you about your experiences in this field.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Labour lose a lot more voters in ethnic minority areas where "head of households" would sign up their children and wive(s), now with IVR these people have to do it themselves and are less inclined to do it. It also adds a step for young people to vote given that their parents will no longer be able to add them to the household register so that's another hindrance to Labour.
It is still the right thing to do, the antiquated system of having the "head of the household" say whether people in his domain were able to vote was an embarrassment.
I have no problem with the principle. But I am less than convinced that the process is disinterested, given that those most likely to be adversely affected are key Labour demographics and the whole thing was brought forward a year so that it takes effect prior to the 2016 elections. Still, it is going to happen so it just has to be lived with. No doubt it will all change when the Tories do eventually lose power.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
If anything Wales, Scotland and NI should have fewer MPs per 100,000 than England because they have their own Parliament's or regional assemblies to govern most of the nation!
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I have never been too sure about that story, it has a touch of the propaganda about it especially when one considers what would have been involved in actually carrying out such an order. Kegan did a very good piece on it in his book, "The Face of Battle" if anyone wants to read up on it.
Mr. Patrick, perhaps, though the death of nobles seemed higher under the three Edwards than in the 12th century. As Miss Cyclefree pointed out, peasants often were happy to stab fallen knights to death (through eye holes in the visor, for example) and loot corpses.
I don't think the French ever paid the full debt for their king (captured by the Black Prince), for that matter.
Knighthood became more expensive (due to changing armour, amongst other things), which led to more scutage (paying off the crown with money for mercenaries rather than turning up for feudal war duty) and fewer knights (we had more in the 12th than the 13th century, even under Edward I). Mercenaries and peasant soldiers became more important, and they were neither the proponents nor the beneficiaries of chivalry (even under the 'golden age' of chivalry, peasants would still get massacred or made destitute by chevauchees, conducted by the selfsame knights who considered themselves honourable).
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Again, the devil is in the detail. Constituencies should be of roughly the same size, all things being equal. But equal size is open to very different interpretations.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Miss Plato, the last prince-bishop of Montenegro, horrendously betrayed by the allies (including us...) after WWI, introduced measures to guarantee freedom of the press.
Even by standards a century old, Corbyn's backward.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Well done Nicola for being out fixing the bridge at this time of year..
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I have never been too sure about that story, it has a touch of the propaganda about it especially when one considers what would have been involved in actually carrying out such an order. Kegan did a very good piece on it in his book, "The Face of Battle" if anyone wants to read up on it.
The fact of the prisoner execution is beyond historical doubt. French and English heralds were there to record the battle and agree its narrative (as was always the case). The whole English army talked of little else afterwards. As did the entire French nobility for centuries. Perfidious Albion and all that. I think the definitive history is Juliet Barker's masterpiece. Doubting it is a bit like saying 'not too sure the Light Brigade actually charged the Russian guns'.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
I would be ok with the eligible voting age population.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Off topic: thanks for your comments on training and Powerpoints. I responded on the previous thread. One day when I make it down to your neck of the woods, assuming I cannot tempt you to dear old London, I would love to chat with you about your experiences in this field.
Thanks, Mrs Free. I did see and appreciate your comments.
I don't get up to Town much these days. Herself won't let me unless I have someone with me or I can absolutely guarantee to be back before the light starts to go. However, we have turned the corner today and lighter evenings are on their way. So perhaps I can look forward to buying you a decent lunch whilst we talk about doing presentations and our working cats in the Spring.
*memo to self* I still owe Mr. Charles a dinner to settle a bet - check to see if he would accept a lunch instead.
Mr. Patrick, perhaps, though the death of nobles seemed higher under the three Edwards than in the 12th century. As Miss Cyclefree pointed out, peasants often were happy to stab fallen knights to death (through eye holes in the visor, for example) and loot corpses.
I don't think the French ever paid the full debt for their king (captured by the Black Prince), for that matter.
Knighthood became more expensive (due to changing armour, amongst other things), which led to more scutage (paying off the crown with money for mercenaries rather than turning up for feudal war duty) and fewer knights (we had more in the 12th than the 13th century, even under Edward I). Mercenaries and peasant soldiers became more important, and they were neither the proponents nor the beneficiaries of chivalry (even under the 'golden age' of chivalry, peasants would still get massacred or made destitute by chevauchees, conducted by the selfsame knights who considered themselves honourable).
Chivalry was about honour (with a huge chunk of poncing and mincing involved). Military necessity is about winning. At some point it was inevitable that the fact of a win would become more important than the style of a win. The English have always been a much more practical race than the image obsessed Froggies. It was always going to be us that moved first to a military approach that emphasised winning medieval battles over and above the 'but did my bum look good in this' motive. Huzzah!
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
Quite right. Only newspapers approved by the People's Commissars should be allowed to publish. Revisionist running-dog lackeys of the capitalist pigs, such as Polly Toynbee and John Rentoul, should be sent for re-education.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Smiling over here (although note the 'except HGVs' part).
Let's hope the SNP have learnt important lessons, even if their supporters on here and elsewhere have not.
The only lesson to be learned is that yet again the SNP have over-delivered while maintaining strong fiscal control. The Loyalists want money wasted all over the place and the SNP are not playing ball.
There was no chance of catastrophic failure, the oversight by the SNP and their decision to support the LIberal run Quango on not spending oodles of money which may have proved unnecessary was undoubtedly the right one. What's more, they've dealt with the worst case scenario swiftly and successfully.
This is another tale of outstanding competence from the SNP administration and leaves 20% Labour with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
Does he think that by attacking the media they will somehow become more friendly towards him? Ed Miliband learned that one the hard way not too long ago.
Of course if he is determined to break up the media he needs to start with the BBC and their large market share in news, but if that is proposed then my name is Santa Claus.
Mr. Patrick, winning can mean capturing and ransoming just as easily as killing.
That said, killing or not could have a psychological impact as well as longer term implications (do people trust you enough to surrender if you've killed people who surrendered previously? And, of course, dead men won't fight you again in the future).
I do recommend it often, but By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, is an excellent book for exploring brutality in the Middle Ages and why it (and sometimes mercy) made sense for that world.
The whole Alice in Wonderland aspect to Corbyn is summed up by the Morning Star - a paper that if quoted here before his campaign would be roundly mocked/is that still going??
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
Quite right. Only newspapers approved by the People's Commissars should be allowed to publish. Revisionist running-dog lackeys of the capitalist pigs, such as Polly Toynbee and John Rentoul, should be sent for re-education.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
That can only be done on the census, which is less frequent and far more out of date than the electoral roll.
Plus it includes a whole lot of people who can't, you know, vote.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Well done Nicola for being out fixing the bridge at this time of year..
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
That can only be done on the census, which is less frequent and far more out of date than the electoral roll.
Plus it includes a whole lot of people who can't, you know, vote.
It also doesn't get filled out by a lot of people who do vote.
I'm 55. I've never completed a census. I've never had any comeback for not completing a census.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I have never been too sure about that story, it has a touch of the propaganda about it especially when one considers what would have been involved in actually carrying out such an order. Kegan did a very good piece on it in his book, "The Face of Battle" if anyone wants to read up on it.
The fact of the prisoner execution is beyond historical doubt. French and English heralds were there to record the battle and agree its narrative (as was always the case). The whole English army talked of little else afterwards. As did the entire French nobility for centuries. Perfidious Albion and all that. I think the definitive history is Juliet Barker's masterpiece. Doubting it is a bit like saying 'not too sure the Light Brigade actually charged the Russian guns'.
No I don't think it is, but I am not prepared to be dogmatic about it. Unfortunately, my papers and books on the Agincourt campaign have been consigned to the attic (under Herself's clearance rules the 15th century had to go) so I can't give a good argument right now.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Well done Nicola for being out fixing the bridge at this time of year..
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
In Yorkshire possibly, but then ... well nevermind.
It used to be said that a gentleman was a chap who would get out of his bath to have a piss but these days I think it is someone who knows the difference between supper and dinner.
Mr. Patrick, winning can mean capturing and ransoming just as easily as killing.
That said, killing or not could have a psychological impact as well as longer term implications (do people trust you enough to surrender if you've killed people who surrendered previously? And, of course, dead men won't fight you again in the future).
I do recommend it often, but By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, is an excellent book for exploring brutality in the Middle Ages and why it (and sometimes mercy) made sense for that world.
Indeed. But in order to capture the enemy aristocracy you need first to defeat them.
Good news: twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/679248534198177792
Good news for workers and tourists, well done to the engineering team for their quick work.
No thanks to the politicians who thought they could get away with cutting the routine maintenance budget though, not maintaining stuff is usually a false economy in the long run as we have seen here.
Almost like they added two weeks to spin the "early" completion"...
Yes, it's impressive, especially as the weather's not been perfect. AIUI it is a temporary bodge until proper repairs can be done.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
Well done Nicola for being out fixing the bridge at this time of year..
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
''So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot. ''
At least the labour posters are consistent. After all, they were whining about this constantly when they were in power.
Oh wait......
I have always been in favour of PR, and believe it was one of Blair's great failures not to introduce electoral reform. He had a few more great failures, but it's nearly dinner time, so I'll leave them for another occasion.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
I can see propulsion units are expensive toys to build, and being able to recover them would be a way to cut down on costs.
On the other hand, going up and coming down again must be pretty knackering on the parts. Obviously there'd be some serious maintenance between launches. But how many launches would a launcher be expected to be used for? Would they end up being chopped up for spare parts after a couple of runs? [A tangential issue: when they consider a manned component to the mission, what would they prefer - a launcher that's fresh off the production line, but has no history of successful launches, or to use one that's already been up and down a few times? The latter you'd have more data on, which sounds safer, but on the other hand the more runs it's done the more wear and tear it's taken.]
If there is a big reduction in the number of launchers needed, how much of the savings would be swallowed up by the increased unit costs from shorter production runs? I know this is a problem with other high-tech, limited production items like military jets.
Also, it's seriously expensive in terms of both fuel and money to lift stuff (payload, but also the rocket and its fuel itself) into the air via rocket. But a self-landing rocket must carry a fair quantity of fuel to manage the descent, so you need fuel to take the up extra fuel.. This presumably adds to the cost, though not so much (one hopes) as the savings from being able to reuse the propulsion unit. Does it, however, make it infeasible as a method of getting big payloads to high orbits?
Smiling over here (although note the 'except HGVs' part).
Let's hope the SNP have learnt important lessons, even if their supporters on here and elsewhere have not.
The only lesson to be learned is that yet again the SNP have over-delivered while maintaining strong fiscal control. The Loyalists want money wasted all over the place and the SNP are not playing ball.
There was no chance of catastrophic failure, the oversight by the SNP and their decision to support the LIberal run Quango on not spending oodles of money which may have proved unnecessary was undoubtedly the right one. What's more, they've dealt with the worst case scenario swiftly and successfully.
This is another tale of outstanding competence from the SNP administration and leaves 20% Labour with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
No, the lesson (as not learnt by 'traitors' such as yourself) is that political decisions such as removing tolls can have real side effects that need to be guarded against. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP are incapable of learning.
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
No, my definition of working well is a system which forces parties to put together coherent platforms, one of which is then selected by the electorate, and where the electorate have the opportunity to boot them out next time.
PR is fool's gold: it pretends that there is some combination which is supported by a majority of the population, when there isn't. So all you get is post-election haggling and pork barrelling, in which very minor single issue parties sometimes get to blackmail their way into getting favourable treatment.
The funniest thing about the whole debate is that the one government which we have had in recent times which did have more than 50% of the vote, and which was a textbook example of the best sort of outcome a PR system could produce, was incredibly unpopular amongst those who support PR, and led to the near-destruction of the party which advocated coalitions as an end in themselves. You have to admit, as political ironies go, that's a humdinger!
After all, it's having a real impact on Scottish politics.
Not very progressive views from cuddly Scotland - a casualty of the cybernat approach to social justice. A generation of haters has been spawned.
She was probably lined up to be a "named person".
It is the Union and it's Loyalist sympathisers which have promulgated the Apartheid system in Scotland. While the SNP should certainly have acted by now, over a hundred years of Union promotion of Apartheid has made this increasingly difficult for today's politicians to address.
That such attitudes exist in Scotland in any significant number is entirely the fault of the Union and Westminster.
Mr. Patrick, winning can mean capturing and ransoming just as easily as killing.
That said, killing or not could have a psychological impact as well as longer term implications (do people trust you enough to surrender if you've killed people who surrendered previously? And, of course, dead men won't fight you again in the future).
I do recommend it often, but By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, is an excellent book for exploring brutality in the Middle Ages and why it (and sometimes mercy) made sense for that world.
Mercy, that is capturing for ransom, made exquisite sense - it was all about the money. As indeed I am sure you are aware having just read up on Marshall.
In Yorkshire possibly, but then ... well nevermind.
It used to be said that a gentleman was a chap who would get out of his bath to have a piss but these days I think it is someone who knows the difference between supper and dinner.
Supper: a meal consisting of pie & peas, served at Labour Party fundraisers and social events.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
Mr. Llama, aye, and I can heartily recommend Thomas Asbridge's book (a review will be up later this month). But execution can make sense too (for treason, for example).
Mr. Dair, your hyperbole is that of a silly sausage.
No, the lesson (as not learnt by 'traitors' such as yourself) is that political decisions such as removing tolls can have real side effects that need to be guarded against. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP are incapable of learning.
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Removing tolls had absolutely no impact, whatsoever, on the bridge according to the engineers who run it. There hasn't been a significant increase in traffic anyway but even so, the bridge was already at capacity for most of the day before tolls were removed. The whole idea that tolls had any impact on what has happened is a canard.
The rest of your SNPBad ranting just goes beyond reason let alone reality.
No, my definition of working well is a system which forces parties to put together coherent platforms, one of which is then selected by the electorate, and where the electorate have the opportunity to boot them out next time.
The utter lunacy of any defence of FPTP knows know bounds.
The electorate vote for parties not candidates, the vast bulk of the electorate get absolutely no say, whatsoever, in the government they elect due to safe seats and even worse, as already pointed out, governments which have absolute power based on a third of the votes cast is by definition, completely undemocratic.
Mr Nabavi: "one of which is then selected by the electorate" That is the problem - only rarely is one party selected by a majority of the electorate - the question is then what do we do when that does not occur. While your preference is for a party with a plurality of support to govern, mine isn't.
I would look at DECC to see where the checks and balances of a moderating coalition partner were having an impact, and the major changes that have been made post-May.
Well worth reading because it gives a real insight into how he thinks.
Thought it was a pretty self indulgent interview. Admirable by all means to think there is good in everyone, but, in reality? I still dread to think how'll he'll ever deal with wider dangers in this world.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
If only the Whigs hadn't been so dreadfully partisan in 1832 in introducing the Reform Act.
Why did they need to do that, and hurt the electoral interests of their opponents? Had they no concerns for a healthy and competitive political system?
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
Off topic: thanks for your comments on training and Powerpoints. I responded on the previous thread. One day when I make it down to your neck of the woods, assuming I cannot tempt you to dear old London, I would love to chat with you about your experiences in this field.
Thanks, Mrs Free. I did see and appreciate your comments.
I don't get up to Town much these days. Herself won't let me unless I have someone with me or I can absolutely guarantee to be back before the light starts to go. However, we have turned the corner today and lighter evenings are on their way. So perhaps I can look forward to buying you a decent lunch whilst we talk about doing presentations and our working cats in the Spring.
*memo to self* I still owe Mr. Charles a dinner to settle a bet - check to see if he would accept a lunch instead.
A decent lunch sounds wonderful. I look forward to it!
Gosh, so many interesting themes this morning: engineering, medieval warfare, PR and electoral reform, the naming of meals. PB at its best. But I am being taken out for lunch (dinner for Mssrs Dancer and Rentool) and I must go and change before my friends arrive to pick me up.
Thanks all for the interesting conversation. Play nicely.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
Quite right. Only newspapers approved by the People's Commissars should be allowed to publish. Revisionist running-dog lackeys of the capitalist pigs, such as Polly Toynbee and John Rentoul, should be sent for re-education.
No worries there. They will be sent to correction/concentration camps, should Jezza gain power. However, not to worry -again - as I bet the Toynbees and Rentouls have travel tickets booked well in advance, just in case.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
Then you should support a directly elected presidential system (preferably with AV or multiple stages)
I like this conversation about Sharia Law and seeing people attempt to justify it, I wonder if they're the same people who approved of punishment beatings meted out by the IRA
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
Some interesting questions there. It's not my area of engineering, but it's the stuff I read up a lot on.
AIUI, the fuel used to get into space is just a tiny part of the cost. The cost goes into the engines, tanks and ullage systems. Therefore reusing the rockets (and especially the powerful first stage) is a no-brainer.
Except rockets are built to be as light as possible, and are therefore delicate creatures that are prone to damage from forces outside calculated directions. In fact, some early ICBM's used the fuel within them as structural support, and defuelling could cause them to collapse!
So the problem is getting the rockets back again, especially when they often launch out to sea for safety reasons. Back in the 1960s NASA actually recovered a rocket engine from the sea, cleaned it of saltwater, and successfully test-fired it on land (I think it was Gemini project, but cannot immediately find a link).
Modern inspection techniques also help re-usability: we have ways of looking 'inside' structures and to perform NDT that would have seemed impossible in the 1960s.
I don't know what SpaceX have planned, but I'd expect the stages to be fully stripped down, checked, cleaned, and reassembled, perhaps with new parts or those from other recovered rockets. That way, different components with differing lifespans could be replaced as and when necessary.
But just reusing engines might save millions per launch, depending on the cost of checking / repairing. And that has to be the current unknown.
As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Well worth reading because it gives a real insight into how he thinks.
Thought it was a pretty self indulgent interview. Admirable by all means to think there is good in everyone, but, in reality? I still dread to think how'll he'll ever deal with wider dangers in this world.
Not at all.He would start with the political solution you have to end up with anyway eg NI.I would welcome the return of an ethical foreign policy,eg a reappraisal of our "alliance" in Saudi
Mr Nabavi: "one of which is then selected by the electorate" That is the problem - only rarely is one party selected by a majority of the electorate - the question is then what do we do when that does not occur. While your preference is for a party with a plurality of support to govern, mine isn't.
I would look at DECC to see where the checks and balances of a moderating coalition partner were having an impact, and the major changes that have been made post-May.
My preference is for a coherent platform selected, as you said, by a plurality of the electorate, because that forces the contenders to try to come up with a broadly acceptable total package, which is the key to the whole thing. Your preference is for the government to be formed by whatever combination, no matter how incoherent, happens to be able to put together a government by haggling with other parties, producing a combination which no-one voted for.
As for your DECC example, that proves the point nicely. You happen to prefer one set of policies, UKIP voters would no doubt prefer a different set. There's no way of reconciling those diametrically opposed positions, someone needs to make a choice. Under FPTP that choice is (usually) made in advance, and voters know what they are voting for. If it's an important issue for them, they can adjust their vote accordingly, weighed up against all the other decisions which government requires. Under PR, someone voting (say) Conservative, in an election in which the Conservatives ended up the largest party and able to form a government with either UKIP or the LibDems, would not have known what she was voting for.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
Following up from my post below: I was wrong. A Saturn I engine was test fired, dunked, cleaned, and re-fired. The engine was not even designed to be reused.
@JosiasJessop The other point about being able to stick the landing with the 1st stage is that they'll gain alot of information and data about how to do it with say a landing capsule.
Also if you can take off then land a rocket on earth, then mechanical stress-wise that's actually tougher on the rocket than performing the same on the moon or mars due to our deeper gravity well.
Edit: I'm not sure this particular Falcon 9 will fly again, heard they may well disassemble it and hang it on the wall as a memento !
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Because they aren't more equal sized. They are sized based on the number of registered electors not number of people living there. As an MP is a representative of all people in their constituency it doesn't make sense to base them on people who want to register to vote.
Because they aren't more equal sized. They are sized based on the number of registered electors not number of people living there. As an MP is a representative of all people in their constituency it doesn't make sense to base them on people who want to register to vote.
So you're arguing that voters in Kensington should have a greater say in the choice of government than voters in Hove?
No, the lesson (as not learnt by 'traitors' such as yourself) is that political decisions such as removing tolls can have real side effects that need to be guarded against. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP are incapable of learning.
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Removing tolls had absolutely no impact, whatsoever, on the bridge according to the engineers who run it. There hasn't been a significant increase in traffic anyway but even so, the bridge was already at capacity for most of the day before tolls were removed. The whole idea that tolls had any impact on what has happened is a canard.
The rest of your SNPBad ranting just goes beyond reason let alone reality.
Removing tolls did have an impact, as the SNP did not guarantee the direct grant that replaced it. Perhaps you need to consider the effects of that before you reply ...
governments which have absolute power based on a third of the votes cast is by definition, completely undemocratic.
Yes, I love that circular argument, it is so funny.
There's nothing circular about it.
FPTP offers some parties 100% of the power with ~35% of the votes (twice in the last three elections in the Uk's case). This is a broken system.
Under any PR system, parties entering coalition are not merely concerned with their own policies and getting them implemented, they equally have to consider how their own voters will react to the coalition platform, it isn't free reign to implement unpopular policies.
And the core of this - what you don't get EVER with FPTP - is that if the party chooses badly and implements policies it's voters don't agree with the voters can actually eject them at the next election.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
I do wonder about the very big launches. If you want a moon shot, for instance, you need a king-sized launcher. When you've got something that big already, do you really want it to be weighed down by more fuel (which means you need to make it even bigger) just so that the first stage can get back down? But if you're right that they can do it basically from "spare" fuel (after all, they don't have to fight gravity so much on the way down) then it seems reasonable.
[I expressed myself badly re why I wondered if more fuel made life more expensive. I know that fuel is cheap compared to the mechanical stuff. But my understanding is that cost of a launch goes up rapidly with increased weight, presumably because a more powerful rocket is much more complex/expensive than a smaller one rather than because the fuel is expensive. My reasoning was more that "extra fuel for the way down adds weight, and weight is expensive". But again, if they can do it on what would be in the reserves anyway, then all's good.]
'But just reusing engines might save millions per launch, depending on the cost of checking / repairing. And that has to be the current unknown.''
Can';t wait for the Sabre engine to get thru development. It's British, it's beautiful, it's revolutionary. Get a move on, Alan!
They've a long way to go, but it is intriguingly interesting. AIUI some of the tech they're developing has intriguing dual-use opportunities in industry.
Comments
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/jeremy-corbyn-interview/
Well worth reading because it gives a real insight into how he thinks.
We explain why the Government, after long, hard negotiations, are recommending to the British people that we should remain a member of the European Community.
We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.
We confidently believe that these better terms can give Britain a New Deal in Europe. A Deal that will help us, help the Commonwealth, and help our partners in Europe.
That is why we are asking you to vote in favour of remaining in the Community.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
The closure of the bridge to HGVs is noteworthy, especially if it is permanent.
@PaulWheelhouse: @jedi_mummy Yep - SNP SG reopening the bridge early & we've done it deliberately! Quick: get Lord Foulkes a cold towel for his brow! ;-)
Nice to see one of her selfie supporters making front page news too
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/provo-princess-teacher-who-glorifies-7053966
"the teacher shared a selfie with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon "
It is still the right thing to do, the antiquated system of having the "head of the household" say whether people in his domain were able to vote was an embarrassment.
Shite news if you run HGVs. Or an economy.
I don't think the French ever paid the full debt for their king (captured by the Black Prince), for that matter.
Knighthood became more expensive (due to changing armour, amongst other things), which led to more scutage (paying off the crown with money for mercenaries rather than turning up for feudal war duty) and fewer knights (we had more in the 12th than the 13th century, even under Edward I). Mercenaries and peasant soldiers became more important, and they were neither the proponents nor the beneficiaries of chivalry (even under the 'golden age' of chivalry, peasants would still get massacred or made destitute by chevauchees, conducted by the selfsame knights who considered themselves honourable).
Auntie Hortence is about? Time to migrate to the pub methinks....
:no-tumbleweed-was-mentioned-in-this-post-seriously:
Some will be more equal than others...
Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
Even by standards a century old, Corbyn's backward.
Jist fur you.
https://twitter.com/scotbot/status/679259331414663172
:unlike-ulster-scotland-wales:
Is he referring to Polly Toynbee?
I don't get up to Town much these days. Herself won't let me unless I have someone with me or I can absolutely guarantee to be back before the light starts to go. However, we have turned the corner today and lighter evenings are on their way. So perhaps I can look forward to buying you a decent lunch whilst we talk about doing presentations and our working cats in the Spring.
*memo to self* I still owe Mr. Charles a dinner to settle a bet - check to see if he would accept a lunch instead.
When your only fan is the Morning Star...
There was no chance of catastrophic failure, the oversight by the SNP and their decision to support the LIberal run Quango on not spending oodles of money which may have proved unnecessary was undoubtedly the right one. What's more, they've dealt with the worst case scenario swiftly and successfully.
This is another tale of outstanding competence from the SNP administration and leaves 20% Labour with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Of course if he is determined to break up the media he needs to start with the BBC and their large market share in news, but if that is proposed then my name is Santa Claus.
That said, killing or not could have a psychological impact as well as longer term implications (do people trust you enough to surrender if you've killed people who surrendered previously? And, of course, dead men won't fight you again in the future).
I do recommend it often, but By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, is an excellent book for exploring brutality in the Middle Ages and why it (and sometimes mercy) made sense for that world.
Now, it's the Labour leader's organ of choice.
Plus it includes a whole lot of people who can't, you know, vote.
What a mess. A Spanish debacle next year might affect the In/Out debate here.
After all, it's having a real impact on Scottish politics.
I'm 55. I've never completed a census. I've never had any comeback for not completing a census.
She was probably lined up to be a "named person".
At least the labour posters are consistent. After all, they were whining about this constantly when they were in power.
Oh wait......
It used to be said that a gentleman was a chap who would get out of his bath to have a piss but these days I think it is someone who knows the difference between supper and dinner.
I can see propulsion units are expensive toys to build, and being able to recover them would be a way to cut down on costs.
On the other hand, going up and coming down again must be pretty knackering on the parts. Obviously there'd be some serious maintenance between launches. But how many launches would a launcher be expected to be used for? Would they end up being chopped up for spare parts after a couple of runs? [A tangential issue: when they consider a manned component to the mission, what would they prefer - a launcher that's fresh off the production line, but has no history of successful launches, or to use one that's already been up and down a few times? The latter you'd have more data on, which sounds safer, but on the other hand the more runs it's done the more wear and tear it's taken.]
If there is a big reduction in the number of launchers needed, how much of the savings would be swallowed up by the increased unit costs from shorter production runs? I know this is a problem with other high-tech, limited production items like military jets.
Also, it's seriously expensive in terms of both fuel and money to lift stuff (payload, but also the rocket and its fuel itself) into the air via rocket. But a self-landing rocket must carry a fair quantity of fuel to manage the descent, so you need fuel to take the up extra fuel.. This presumably adds to the cost, though not so much (one hopes) as the savings from being able to reuse the propulsion unit. Does it, however, make it infeasible as a method of getting big payloads to high orbits?
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
PR is fool's gold: it pretends that there is some combination which is supported by a majority of the population, when there isn't. So all you get is post-election haggling and pork barrelling, in which very minor single issue parties sometimes get to blackmail their way into getting favourable treatment.
The funniest thing about the whole debate is that the one government which we have had in recent times which did have more than 50% of the vote, and which was a textbook example of the best sort of outcome a PR system could produce, was incredibly unpopular amongst those who support PR, and led to the near-destruction of the party which advocated coalitions as an end in themselves. You have to admit, as political ironies go, that's a humdinger!
That such attitudes exist in Scotland in any significant number is entirely the fault of the Union and Westminster.
Dinner: what I'll be eating in 5 minutes time.
Mr. Dair, your hyperbole is that of a silly sausage.
Con 28.7 (PP)
Lab 22.0 (PSOE)
Green 20.7 (Podemos)
to electoralcalculus
then either
Lib Dems 13.0% (Ideologically closest to the C's in UK politics - yes I know there are major differences... !)
You get a Con-Lib Dem arrangement as the most likely Gov't.
If you put in UKIP 13.0% then you come to a very similiar predicament that Spain has right now.
So 13.0% means very different things for UKIP (5 seats in this scenario) and the LDs (31 seats)
The rest of your SNPBad ranting just goes beyond reason let alone reality.
The electorate vote for parties not candidates, the vast bulk of the electorate get absolutely no say, whatsoever, in the government they elect due to safe seats and even worse, as already pointed out, governments which have absolute power based on a third of the votes cast is by definition, completely undemocratic.
I would look at DECC to see where the checks and balances of a moderating coalition partner were having an impact, and the major changes that have been made post-May.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Why did they need to do that, and hurt the electoral interests of their opponents? Had they no concerns for a healthy and competitive political system?
Thanks all for the interesting conversation. Play nicely.
AIUI, the fuel used to get into space is just a tiny part of the cost. The cost goes into the engines, tanks and ullage systems. Therefore reusing the rockets (and especially the powerful first stage) is a no-brainer.
Except rockets are built to be as light as possible, and are therefore delicate creatures that are prone to damage from forces outside calculated directions. In fact, some early ICBM's used the fuel within them as structural support, and defuelling could cause them to collapse!
So the problem is getting the rockets back again, especially when they often launch out to sea for safety reasons. Back in the 1960s NASA actually recovered a rocket engine from the sea, cleaned it of saltwater, and successfully test-fired it on land (I think it was Gemini project, but cannot immediately find a link).
Modern inspection techniques also help re-usability: we have ways of looking 'inside' structures and to perform NDT that would have seemed impossible in the 1960s.
I don't know what SpaceX have planned, but I'd expect the stages to be fully stripped down, checked, cleaned, and reassembled, perhaps with new parts or those from other recovered rockets. That way, different components with differing lifespans could be replaced as and when necessary.
But just reusing engines might save millions per launch, depending on the cost of checking / repairing. And that has to be the current unknown.
As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
As for your DECC example, that proves the point nicely. You happen to prefer one set of policies, UKIP voters would no doubt prefer a different set. There's no way of reconciling those diametrically opposed positions, someone needs to make a choice. Under FPTP that choice is (usually) made in advance, and voters know what they are voting for. If it's an important issue for them, they can adjust their vote accordingly, weighed up against all the other decisions which government requires. Under PR, someone voting (say) Conservative, in an election in which the Conservatives ended up the largest party and able to form a government with either UKIP or the LibDems, would not have known what she was voting for.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5948
It's a defence of FPTP and one that is a very clear and obvious lie.
Also if you can take off then land a rocket on earth, then mechanical stress-wise that's actually tougher on the rocket than performing the same on the moon or mars due to our deeper gravity well.
Edit: I'm not sure this particular Falcon 9 will fly again, heard they may well disassemble it and hang it on the wall as a memento !
It's a view, I suppose.
Can';t wait for the Sabre engine to get thru development. It's British, it's beautiful, it's revolutionary. Get a move on, Alan!
FPTP offers some parties 100% of the power with ~35% of the votes (twice in the last three elections in the Uk's case). This is a broken system.
Under any PR system, parties entering coalition are not merely concerned with their own policies and getting them implemented, they equally have to consider how their own voters will react to the coalition platform, it isn't free reign to implement unpopular policies.
And the core of this - what you don't get EVER with FPTP - is that if the party chooses badly and implements policies it's voters don't agree with the voters can actually eject them at the next election.
I do wonder about the very big launches. If you want a moon shot, for instance, you need a king-sized launcher. When you've got something that big already, do you really want it to be weighed down by more fuel (which means you need to make it even bigger) just so that the first stage can get back down? But if you're right that they can do it basically from "spare" fuel (after all, they don't have to fight gravity so much on the way down) then it seems reasonable.
[I expressed myself badly re why I wondered if more fuel made life more expensive. I know that fuel is cheap compared to the mechanical stuff. But my understanding is that cost of a launch goes up rapidly with increased weight, presumably because a more powerful rocket is much more complex/expensive than a smaller one rather than because the fuel is expensive. My reasoning was more that "extra fuel for the way down adds weight, and weight is expensive". But again, if they can do it on what would be in the reserves anyway, then all's good.]