"Twelve men who sexually exploited a vulnerable teenage girl in West Yorkshire have received jail sentences of up to 20 years. Eleven were jailed at Bradford Crown Court after being convicted of raping the girl in Keighley from the age of 13."
This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.
The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.
I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.
The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.
If Sadiq Khan thinks you can get a mortgage in a day, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
I'm sure a policy of fining 18 - 22 year olds will be incredibly popular.
HSBC do a one day mortgage service.
Have you actually tried it? Gone in at 9:30 am and come out by the end of the day with an actual mortgage offer?
Given all the hoops banks have to go through - KYC and the rest of it - it's just not going to work. Khan was just talking out of his rear end.
My colleague. Appointment in the morning, approved later that day.
OK.
Given the hoops banks have go through even to take on a customer, let alone the recent changes which the FCA brought in about mortgages, I find this surprising. But can't gainsay your colleague's experience.
Still, to be pedantic, I imagine your colleague arrived all prepared with all the necessary documentation, information etc and was already a customer of the bank.
On a separate note, I do worry about banks slipping back into some of the business practices which led to so much grief a few years ago.
We're beginning to forget the lessons some us have yet to learn.
They give you a list of things you're meant to bring, is much easier if you're a HSBC customer already.
I remember in 2000 when I was approved for my mortgage, was much easier than I thought, considering I was only 21 and hadn't had a job yet!
"Twelve men who sexually exploited a vulnerable teenage girl in West Yorkshire have received jail sentences of up to 20 years. Eleven were jailed at Bradford Crown Court after being convicted of raping the girl in Keighley from the age of 13."
I like David Cameron's line about Leaver supporters 'need to start answering questions' about what exit would look like, when he's banned half of them from speaking out until 18th!!
This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.
The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.
I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.
The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.
Registering to vote has now been made ridiculously easy. All you need is your NI number and you are good to go.
Mr. Stodge, registering can (according to PBers the other day) be done online in under five minutes, and voting requires a short walk once every 5 years. If people can't be bothered, that's up to them.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
It's a nuts bet. I really can't see why Trump would withdraw - short of imminent scandal - unless he loses NH and SC (and not necessarily even then, though he'd be catastrophically damaged as a 'winner' by that point). You can back him to win NH at 1/5 so surely the bet would be to lay him there?
Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.
Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.
Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
It's a nuts bet. I really can't see why Trump would withdraw - short of imminent scandal - unless he loses NH and SC (and not necessarily even then, though he'd be catastrophically damaged as a 'winner' by that point). You can back him to win NH at 1/5 so surely the bet would be to lay him there?
Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.
Trump is lucky the Broncos won the superbowl last night. He tweeted he was bored with it halfway through I think.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
This is a damned silly idea. I am unsurprised Tim Montgomerie is in favour.
The whole concept of democracy is freedom to choose. Not bothering to participate is a legitimate choice.
I think there's a line between "not bothering" (whatever that means) and making the system too prescriptive (which I'm not saying it is or isn't) to encourage maximum turnout.
The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.
All else being equal, a higher turnout is better than a lower turnout for all sorts of reasons, from perceived legitimacy of those elected to the creation of (or reaffirmation of) a sense of civic or national identity and collectiveness. It's why I'm in favour of a move to elections on Sundays, for example.
It becomes a far trickier question when there's a tradeoff between a higher turnout on the one hand and some negative effect on the other. Security of voting is one obvious example (e-voting and postal voting are not as secure but do drive up turnout), restricting freedom of choice through compulsion of action is another. As always in such cases, it's a judgement call as to what's best, and different people will come up with different judgements.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
He did it during the Indyref. He knows people trust him on these matters
Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron
An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.
I don't agree with compulsory voting but as others have said down thread our political classes really have to start addressing the question of why their wares have so few customers.
Safe Labour seats generally seem to have the lowest turnout. No doubt this reflects the difficulty in keeping the register up to date in Inner Cities. Safe Tory seats often have very high turnout, one of the reasons Tory voting efficiency was so poor prior to 2015. So saying that we have too many safe seats is a bit of a cop out. The differences are a few per cent at best.
What will be significant in the future is whether more of those who didn't bother to vote when they were younger will pick up the habit as they grow older. I suspect that a fair bit of the currently disproportionate turnout of oldies is because they grew up in a time when voting was regarded as more of a duty than it is now. If that is the case the proportion of those voting will continue to fall as that generation dies out. The idea of a significant number of our MPs being elected in elections where less than half the eligible electorate voted is not attractive.
The Prime Minister is working himself up to full Venkman mode:
Dr. Peter Venkman: ....headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"? Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff. Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly. Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave! Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
It's a nuts bet. I really can't see why Trump would withdraw - short of imminent scandal - unless he loses NH and SC (and not necessarily even then, though he'd be catastrophically damaged as a 'winner' by that point). You can back him to win NH at 1/5 so surely the bet would be to lay him there?
Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.
Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.
Ewww
Oh not that kind of 'rusty spoon'
Er... does "rusty spoon" mean something other than "rusty spoon"?
@MarqueeMark - Looks like Cameron has you in mind:
"There are any number of opposition politicians in France who would like to tear up the excellent agreement we have with France to make sure we have our birders on their side of the Channel."
Anybody who thinks that it is ever acceptable for there to be compulsory voting for anybody, in any circumstances, is a desperately dangerous insane maniac who is totalitarian in outlook and who needs to be cut into a thousand small pieces with a blunt rusty spoon.
Ewww
Oh not that kind of 'rusty spoon'
Er... does "rusty spoon" mean something other than "rusty spoon"?
Yes, it is very disgusting, and makes even me go ewwww and I'm no delicate flower.
@MarqueeMark - Looks like Cameron has you in mind:
"There are any number of opposition politicians in France who would like to tear up the excellent agreement we have with France to make sure we have our birders on their side of the Channel."
Mr. Stodge, registering can (according to PBers the other day) be done online in under five minutes, and voting requires a short walk once every 5 years. If people can't be bothered, that's up to them.
Well, that's your view and you're entitled to it.
You are of course completely utterly and totally wrong and no fleet of enormo-pilchards will change that.
I'm not a supporter of voter registration and this daft idea of having to vote where you live belongs in the agricultural age. Then we have his humdinger of an idea called "the postal vote" as an alternative (not that the postal vote isn't open to a wee bit of corruption as well).
If I live in London, I should be able to vote in Penzance on polling day and have my vote counted for my constituency without pre-registration or filling in forms. Yes, I have to prove my eligibility to vote in terms of age and to provide an address (we know of course how open to abuse that is as well) but that's all.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 35m35 minutes ago TRUMP is a 7/2 chance with William Hill to officially quit White House race to as a Republican candidate before March 1, 'Super Tuesday'
Do they know something I don't?!
Maybe they know he is planning to withdraw on the Wednesday.
It's a nuts bet. I really can't see why Trump would withdraw - short of imminent scandal - unless he loses NH and SC (and not necessarily even then, though he'd be catastrophically damaged as a 'winner' by that point). You can back him to win NH at 1/5 so surely the bet would be to lay him there?
Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.
Trump is lucky the Broncos won the superbowl last night. He tweeted he was bored with it halfway through I think.
I'm invariably bored with anything that Coldplay touch.
(I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there? I probably should pay more attention given that 100m watch the superbowl but could you fill in the gaps for me?)
He's often explained that (as has Osborne), and the corresponding protection we need to go with it. For example in his Bloomberg speech:
First, the Eurozone.
The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union - and the future of every country within it.
The Union is changing to help fix the currency - and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.
Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.
And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
He did it during the Indyref. He knows people trust him on these matters
Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron
An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.
Nato is a different issue. No-one is suggesting that Britain leave Nato.
When France left Nato in the early 1960s did the sky fall in? Was France appreciably more at risk of invasion or other risks? Did other countries refuse to deal with her? Or impose punitive - or any - sanctions on her?
While there are many differences, the case of France and Nato may be a useful guide to how other countries react when a relatively important country chooses to leave an international and significant organization.
If I live in London, I should be able to vote in Penzance on polling day and have my vote counted for my constituency without pre-registration or filling in forms. Yes, I have to prove my eligibility to vote in terms of age and to provide an address (we know of course how open to abuse that is as well) but that's all.
You can use a postal or a proxy vote. No need for any adjustments to the existing system.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
HMQ having a heart attack and dying if we LEAVE! Britain sliding into the sea! Sun going Nova and wiping out the earth!
I wonder if it might be different. Migration is seen as a negative and it was already on the radar. The SNP did not want to discuss losing the pound. I think the Leave campaigns (some, at least) won't mind banging on about immigration.
There's a chance Cameron wibbling about it will backfire to a significant degree.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
HMQ having a heart attack and dying if we LEAVE! Britain sliding into the sea! Sun going Nova and wiping out the earth!
The second and third are directly related to the first, not our leaving the EU
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
It's heading that way.
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
The Prime Minister is working himself up to full Venkman mode:
Dr. Peter Venkman: ....headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"? Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff. Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly. Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave! Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mr. Eagles, if I were you, I'd be more considered about the Leader of the Opposition wanting open borders, nuclear submarines without nukes, and the long-term dream of disbanding the armed forces.
He's often explained that, and the corresponding protection we need to go with it. For example in his Bloomberg speech:
First, the Eurozone.
The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union - and the future of every country within it.
The Union is changing to help fix the currency - and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.
Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.
And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.
As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.
Yeah, yeah: that was a speech. and some time ago. A speech is just words. It does not amount to any action at all. A speech has no legal standing whatsoever.
What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?
Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
What next? Russian tanks rolling over our frontiers if we vote Leave? Children being born with monstrous deformities? Lepers poisoning the water supply?
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
Indeed and I think there are some on here who would prefer to see the Channel Tunnel bricked up as the best way of stopping such migration.
I was mildly encouraged by reports of the new line on prisons (Gove's of course) and I thought I was going to hear Dave's inner "liberal conservative" coming through and much of what is being proposed on prisons could have come from the LDs.
Now, I see it's back to EU scaremongering and though I'm on the side of REMAIN, this is just weak and disappointing from the Prime Minister. Being outside the EU makes not a jot of difference as regards our susceptibility to a terrorist attack and, as you and others have argued, worrying about any IS supporters coming in with the migrants should be secondary to the radicalisation by IS of British people.
Now, I see it's back to EU scaremongering and though I'm on the side of REMAIN, this is just weak and disappointing from the Prime Minister. Being outside the EU makes not a jot of difference as regards our susceptibility to a terrorist attack
The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.
What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.
Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest natural gas producer in the United States.
Share price down over 50% today.
It has announced it is appointing bankruptcy lawyers for a "restructuring".... Being killed by low oil prices. Saudi must be chuckling.
Not for long. Investors and Banks lose their money, someone new buys the assets for pennys and continues production with no capital costs to recoup....
Agreed. Once EZ states start integrating their fiscal policy for real they will become utterly dominant in the EU and the desire to use the tools, resources and funds of the EU in ways that benefit the EZ bloc will be irresistible under current arrangements. Sometimes those policies will also benefit non-EZ countries, it is of course in our interest that their economies succeed and that their demand for our products grow. And sometimes they will not.
Building a safeguard into the future arrangements that allowed such integration was, for me, what the renegotiation was all about. From things that both Cameron and Osborne have said over time I thought they completely got that, Osborne especially. And I have seen nothing to persuade me that there is any comfort or protection available.
At the moment I am voting Leave with a heavy heart, with a real concern about what it is going to do to the best leadership the Tory party has had in my lifetime, with considerable uncertainty about what comes next and a recognition that in some ways our position in the EEA will be worse, not better, with even less say in how the EU develops without us.
But this club is changing and in a way I don't see this country wanting to follow for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
'As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.'
Well Richard you are happy to read great things into a few airy phrases, others may not be. As usual, Cyclefree is on the money - where is the solid evidence this will make any difference?
And if you compare what has been achieved with what was being sought, e.g. double majority voting, what we have got is, to use the PM's own phrase 'wafer thin'.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Think how bad Nov 13 in Paris would have been without the EU
I find this really quite distasteful by the Prime Minister.
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
He did it during the Indyref. He knows people trust him on these matters
Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron
An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
Yeah, yeah: that was a speech. and some time ago. A speech is just words. It does not amount to any action at all. A speech has no legal standing whatsoever.
What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?
Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.
There are two aspects to that: what we want, and how best to get it.
Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?
(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.
(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.
If you agree with me so far, there are three main scenarios to consider:
1) We stay in, on the renegotiated terms. As part of that, we've explicitly agreed not to block (b), they've explicitly agreed to (c). We have the original treaty protections against discrimination, plus the extra protection of the renegotiation and formal acknowledgement that the EU is a multi-currency union. Yes it is legally binding. Yes we can go to court to enforce it. Yes government and EU lawyers have opined upon it. Good in principle, right? Now, maybe you'll argue that it's not binding enough. But consider the alternatives:
2) We leave, and join the EEA. We now have zero protection of the type (c), but we're still subject to the rules of the Single Market. They can do what they like, and we're stuffed.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
Look at it as I may, and even taking the most pessimistic view of the renegotiation, I really cannot see how anyone could possibly argue that either of the two alternatives is better from the point of view of Eurozone hegemony. They might be better for other reasons, but not that one.
Maybe I've missed something, I've been hoping that someone would enlighten me if so. Silence so far.
Given that the EU renegotiation hasn't yet been completed and Cameron has already hit the big red FUD button, I think we can now safely say that Cameron never sincerely considered backing leave if his renegotiation was to fail. What a pathetic berk he is turning out to be.
'As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.'
Well Richard you are happy to read great things into a few airy phrases, others may not be. As usual, Cyclefree is on the money - where is the solid evidence this will make any difference?
And if you compare what has been achieved with what was being sought, e.g. double majority voting, what we have got is, to use the PM's own phrase 'wafer thin'.
Ah, just the man. How's the essay on why EEA membership would give us better protection from Eurozone hegemony coming along?
Just listened to the former chief executive of the border agency on Sky confirming that it is correct for the Prime Minister to raise the issue of the border agreement with France which apparently was agreed as we were an EU member
'From things that both Cameron and Osborne have said over time I thought they completely got that, Osborne especially'
Indeed David, you might think back to his comments after the EZ countries pulled a fast one on us over the Greek bailout 'this is just a straw in the wind of what is coming our way'.
But he appears to have folded entirely, as indeed the government has on all the other main areas of change it said it wanted.
Given that the EU renegotiation hasn't yet been completed and Cameron has already hit the big red FUD button, I think we can now safely say that Cameron never sincerely considered backing leave if his renegotiation was to fail. What a pathetic berk he is turning out to be.
You mean has always been, surely. The man bathes in snake oil
The Spectator quoted several Tories close to Cameron well over a month ago saying that Project Fear would be used like you'd never seen before in the EU ref. That included gunning very heavily on economic security, terrorism, migration and the threat from Russia.
What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.
Of course. What did anyone expect?
The other side are just as bad, indeed worse, implying we'll be overrun with zillions of terrorists if we Remain.
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave
Mr. Eagles, no-one's suggesting we leave NATO. Or the pound.
No one likes uncertainty, give the lover some Kippers have for Putin, our membership of NATO isn't guaranteed
What's more, Dave's scare tactics WILL work. They've been effective in the past, why change a winning formula now ?
This will be the problem if Gove leads LEAVE. The only real defence to this is calling him a liar at regular intervals, preferably with evidence to hand. I can't see Gove is going to want to go around screaming that his dinner party confidante is a bare faced liar, even if sadly it seems to be the case at the moment.
Listening to David Cameron today on prison reform and his references to Michael Gove it would seem unlikely that Gove will come out for leave
Sunday Times said he was more Out than In
Prison reform quid pro quo to remain?
No, I think Gove is conflicted, he is an Outer, but he is also loyal to Cameron, and knows a Brexit means Dave going, and someone replacing him who will undo the Cameroon project
But Dave is going anyway though I am sure he is conflicted. It would seem odd to me that within 10 days of today's speech on prison reform he affirms leave
An orderly departure at a time of Dave's choosing is what is needed, not Dave being toppled before his time
Mr. Eagles, because a segment of supporters for one party, which has one MP, are less anti-Putin than most, you seriously think we might leave NATO?
You silly sausage. The point of trolling is doing it so people can't tell. You have laid it on too thick, and betrayed your mischievous intent.
I'm being honest, many Kippers BTL comment about their admiration of Putin, it is alarming.
(A lot of Kippers are vehemently anti Putin, but the Venn Diagram of Putin supporters in the UK and UKIP voters would be very amusing)
And you seem to have a teenage crush on Cameron
Being a one nation Tory not obsessed by Europe under the leadership of IDS, you hoped someone like Dave would appear.
This is going to be my reaction when Dave goes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsNr9UJeVY
TSE has just invented a new game for his Smartphone - Cameron Crush
What a pathetic idiot you are. Kippers orgasm over Putin because he is a corrupt bigoted nationalistic dictator who might embarrass Europe. I think you get the gist of my intent.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
4. We assume our parliament is sovereign for all matters including immigration and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away for trade in any circumstances.
And then we get what we can on trade with the EU, subject to those principles.
Mr. Eagles, because a segment of supporters for one party, which has one MP, are less anti-Putin than most, you seriously think we might leave NATO?
You silly sausage. The point of trolling is doing it so people can't tell. You have laid it on too thick, and betrayed your mischievous intent.
I'm being honest, many Kippers BTL comment about their admiration of Putin, it is alarming.
(A lot of Kippers are vehemently anti Putin, but the Venn Diagram of Putin supporters in the UK and UKIP voters would be very amusing)
And you seem to have a teenage crush on Cameron
Being a one nation Tory not obsessed by Europe under the leadership of IDS, you hoped someone like Dave would appear.
This is going to be my reaction when Dave goes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsNr9UJeVY
TSE has just invented a new game for his Smartphone - Cameron Crush
What a pathetic idiot you are. Kippers orgasm over Putin because he is a corrupt bigoted nationalistic dictator who might embarrass Europe. I think you get the gist of my intent.
Comments
Project Fear continues...
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/696720334884622336
Wouldn't be the first fight that started over the Ebro...
*innocent face
Eleven were jailed at Bradford Crown Court after being convicted of raping the girl in Keighley from the age of 13."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340
The argument in a representative democracy for maximising turnout and participation can't simply be boiled down to "if they can't be bothered to register, hard luck" but that seems to be where the interest (or self interest) of some seems to lie.
I remember in 2000 when I was approved for my mortgage, was much easier than I thought, considering I was only 21 and hadn't had a job yet!
Turn the question around: why would he withdraw before Super Tuesday if he's won New Hampshire, even if only just? South Carolina also looks reasonably favourable for him and he'd presumably believe himself still in with a good chance there, which would set him up pretty well for Super Tuesday. He's only going to withdraw unforced if he believes that it's either not worth it or that the results will embarrass him. If he's winning, neither reason applies.
Share price down over 50% today.
Oh not that kind of 'rusty spoon'
Whether in or out Britain will be at risk of terrorism. There are arguments both ways: cross-border co-operation over policing and security matters is one of the good things about being in the EU though I very much doubt that they would end even if we left.
Equally, when we are at the mercy of the weakest bit of the external EU border and whatever decisions a foreign leader makes on immigration issues, it is not hard to make some sort of case that being in the EU brings added risks.
Rather than sounding semi-hysterical on these topics, the PM might do better to concentrate more on doing whatever we can on reducing the terror threat from the people we already have in this country. The French, in particular, have good reason to be critical of the role Britain has played over the years in being a safe haven for all sorts of appalling so-called preachers who inspired (or worse) those who killed here and in France (and elsewhere).
It becomes a far trickier question when there's a tradeoff between a higher turnout on the one hand and some negative effect on the other. Security of voting is one obvious example (e-voting and postal voting are not as secure but do drive up turnout), restricting freedom of choice through compulsion of action is another. As always in such cases, it's a judgement call as to what's best, and different people will come up with different judgements.
Independent Scotland more at risk of terrorist attacks, warns David Cameron
An independent Scotland’s future in Nato was a matter of 'total confusion', alongside its membership of the European Union and its currency, the Prime Minister said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11078405/Independent-Scotland-more-at-risk-of-terrorist-attacks-warns-David-Cameron.html
Safe Labour seats generally seem to have the lowest turnout. No doubt this reflects the difficulty in keeping the register up to date in Inner Cities. Safe Tory seats often have very high turnout, one of the reasons Tory voting efficiency was so poor prior to 2015. So saying that we have too many safe seats is a bit of a cop out. The differences are a few per cent at best.
What will be significant in the future is whether more of those who didn't bother to vote when they were younger will pick up the habit as they grow older. I suspect that a fair bit of the currently disproportionate turnout of oldies is because they grew up in a time when voting was regarded as more of a duty than it is now. If that is the case the proportion of those voting will continue to fall as that generation dies out. The idea of a significant number of our MPs being elected in elections where less than half the eligible electorate voted is not attractive.
Dr. Peter Venkman: ....headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Has anyone actually tried turning the Labour Party off and back on again?
"There are any number of opposition politicians in France who would like to tear up the excellent agreement we have with France to make sure we have our birders on their side of the Channel."
Fraudulent registration isn't as easy though
You silly sausage. The point of trolling is doing it so people can't tell. You have laid it on too thick, and betrayed your mischievous intent.
You are of course completely utterly and totally wrong and no fleet of enormo-pilchards will change that.
I'm not a supporter of voter registration and this daft idea of having to vote where you live belongs in the agricultural age. Then we have his humdinger of an idea called "the postal vote" as an alternative (not that the postal vote isn't open to a wee bit of corruption as well).
If I live in London, I should be able to vote in Penzance on polling day and have my vote counted for my constituency without pre-registration or filling in forms. Yes, I have to prove my eligibility to vote in terms of age and to provide an address (we know of course how open to abuse that is as well) but that's all.
(I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there? I probably should pay more attention given that 100m watch the superbowl but could you fill in the gaps for me?)
First, the Eurozone.
The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union - and the future of every country within it.
The Union is changing to help fix the currency - and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.
Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.
And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg
As I've said over the last few days, this bit of the renegotiation is good - beneficial to both sides.
When France left Nato in the early 1960s did the sky fall in? Was France appreciably more at risk of invasion or other risks? Did other countries refuse to deal with her? Or impose punitive - or any - sanctions on her?
While there are many differences, the case of France and Nato may be a useful guide to how other countries react when a relatively important country chooses to leave an international and significant organization.
Britain sliding into the sea!
Sun going Nova and wiping out the earth!
I wonder if it might be different. Migration is seen as a negative and it was already on the radar. The SNP did not want to discuss losing the pound. I think the Leave campaigns (some, at least) won't mind banging on about immigration.
There's a chance Cameron wibbling about it will backfire to a significant degree.
REMAIN = Traitor Pig-Dogs!
Does Cameron not have any positive reasons for staying?
(A lot of Kippers are vehemently anti Putin, but the Venn Diagram of Putin supporters in the UK and UKIP voters would be very amusing)
What does the "deal" actually mean? What actual protection does it provide? How concrete is it? How legally binding is it? Can we go to court and enforce it? Have government and EU lawyers opined on it?
Just because Cameron seems to think that talking about something is the same as taking action about something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally gullible.
First reason rhymes with Jeremy Corbyn
Second reason rhymes with John McDonnell
*wonders if that is a euphemism for something*
I was mildly encouraged by reports of the new line on prisons (Gove's of course) and I thought I was going to hear Dave's inner "liberal conservative" coming through and much of what is being proposed on prisons could have come from the LDs.
Now, I see it's back to EU scaremongering and though I'm on the side of REMAIN, this is just weak and disappointing from the Prime Minister. Being outside the EU makes not a jot of difference as regards our susceptibility to a terrorist attack and, as you and others have argued, worrying about any IS supporters coming in with the migrants should be secondary to the radicalisation by IS of British people.
'Independent Scotland would be more at risk of terrorist attacks, says David Cameron'
http://tinyurl.com/hts435v
Edit: ha, TSE beat me to it.
What you are seeing now is the fulfilment of that promise.
This is going to be my reaction when Dave goes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsNr9UJeVY
Thousands of Londoners rush to sign up for George Osborne's Help-to-buy scheme https://t.co/M3MCboaNw8
Building a safeguard into the future arrangements that allowed such integration was, for me, what the renegotiation was all about. From things that both Cameron and Osborne have said over time I thought they completely got that, Osborne especially. And I have seen nothing to persuade me that there is any comfort or protection available.
At the moment I am voting Leave with a heavy heart, with a real concern about what it is going to do to the best leadership the Tory party has had in my lifetime, with considerable uncertainty about what comes next and a recognition that in some ways our position in the EEA will be worse, not better, with even less say in how the EU develops without us.
But this club is changing and in a way I don't see this country wanting to follow for the foreseeable future.
Or they may excite mockery. We'll see.
(See Uniondivvie's post)
That currency problem is what underpinned Project Fear I, our currency if we remain or if we leave will be Sterling.
Well Richard you are happy to read great things into a few airy phrases, others may not be. As usual, Cyclefree is on the money - where is the solid evidence this will make any difference?
And if you compare what has been achieved with what was being sought, e.g. double majority voting, what we have got is, to use the PM's own phrase 'wafer thin'.
That'd be despicable, of course.
Can we at least agree he is right on what we want?
(a) It is very much in our interests for the Eurozone not to be a disaster; in particular we don't want a repeat of the Greek/Irish/Portugese crisis.
(b) Assuming the Euro continues to exist (and almost everyone agrees it will), the Eurozone needs further integration so that it can address its structural problems. We should be in favour of that, and anyway it is (as you say) going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not.
(c) That integration poses some dangers for us, from which we need protection. Most notably, we don't want to be locked out of the Single Market for financial services, we don't want to be dragged into paying for their mistakes, and we don't want them to make decisions which indirectly damage our interests.
If you agree with me so far, there are three main scenarios to consider:
1) We stay in, on the renegotiated terms. As part of that, we've explicitly agreed not to block (b), they've explicitly agreed to (c). We have the original treaty protections against discrimination, plus the extra protection of the renegotiation and formal acknowledgement that the EU is a multi-currency union. Yes it is legally binding. Yes we can go to court to enforce it. Yes government and EU lawyers have opined upon it. Good in principle, right? Now, maybe you'll argue that it's not binding enough. But consider the alternatives:
2) We leave, and join the EEA. We now have zero protection of the type (c), but we're still subject to the rules of the Single Market. They can do what they like, and we're stuffed.
3) We leave, and have a looser arrangement than the EEA. They can still do what they like, we're still stuffed, and in all probability we don't even have full access to the Single Market for financial services.
Look at it as I may, and even taking the most pessimistic view of the renegotiation, I really cannot see how anyone could possibly argue that either of the two alternatives is better from the point of view of Eurozone hegemony. They might be better for other reasons, but not that one.
Maybe I've missed something, I've been hoping that someone would enlighten me if so. Silence so far.
Indeed David, you might think back to his comments after the EZ countries pulled a fast one on us over the Greek bailout 'this is just a straw in the wind of what is coming our way'.
But he appears to have folded entirely, as indeed the government has on all the other main areas of change it said it wanted.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3187d7a-570e-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3zaxV3jkb
The other side are just as bad, indeed worse, implying we'll be overrun with zillions of terrorists if we Remain.
Welcome to politics.
NATIONAL:
Trump 31, Rubio 21, Cruz 20, Kasich 6, Carson 5, Bush 4, Christie 3, Fiorina 3.
Kippers orgasm over Putin because he is a corrupt bigoted nationalistic dictator who might embarrass Europe.
I think you get the gist of my intent.
4. We assume our parliament is sovereign for all matters including immigration and that sovereignty cannot be bartered away for trade in any circumstances.
And then we get what we can on trade with the EU, subject to those principles.