@DavidL A misspelt name is a long term hazard for any Alastair, but life certainly got a lot more complicated for me when my firm merged with a Scottish law firm in 2012.
There's always a faint note of disappointment when I speak with one of my Scottish partners for the first time and they hear my southern English accent.
Alasdair is the correct spelling. The others are just different degrees of wrong.
Mr Lidington:The question I take from the debate is this: how do we provide the credible assurances that give effect to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—that the Government will be restrained in their use of public money and have no wish to compete with the umbrella campaign organisations whose job it will be to lead the yes and no campaigns? I acknowledge the constructive way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) responded to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on that point. As the Bill goes forward over future
In the last few weeks I've gone from being undecided but inclined to vote Leave to being a Remain supporter. Every time I read PB I feel myself moving more strongly in that direction. Phrases like "monster EU" and fantasies about our being manipulated by a "euroloon cabal" might stiffen the morale of the devoted but..really...do they honestly believe that nonsense.
And how do you feel about Leavers being labelled as loons, fruitcakes, frothers and cheesemen by Remainers?
Neither side has a monopoly on either hyperbole or insults.
Do we really have to have this sort of flounce every few days where another politically engaged person announces to the world that because one side or other is horrible and nasty they are going to change there views completely. It's not remotely credible. It rather like many forumers on all the big online games that have a hissy fit and announce they are all leaving after there is a rule change or some sort and then... erm... dont.
Who has flounced today?
Not flounced out, flounced from one side to the other. We keep seeing "I was leave but they are so horrible I am going to vote remain now" or "I was remain but they are so patronising I am going to vote leave now". No one is going to change their side because of a few online personalities who they have never met, change it because of the quality of argument or from new information maybe, but not because some you have never met, and probably won't, and may not even actually support the side they are claiming to, isn't very nice.
mince and full off , come to mind. Think people are stupid enough to believe their stupid wittering about changing their minds, when it si pretty obvious they are solid fanboys and voting REMAIN under any circumstances.
Meanwhile the popular press i starting to pick up on some of the key economic points in the EU debate, in this case the UK's relatively low - and declining - trade integration with the rest of the EU. Actually even the estimates quoted in this article are overestimates of the true position.
And as noted on here in recent weeks, this trend will only become more marked over the next 10-15 years.
Constituencies with the least petition signatures as at 8:00 8/4/16
UK: Mid Ulster 21 England, Scotland, Wales: Na h-Eileanan an Iar 23 UK Mainland: Glasgow East 30 England: Hackney North 46 England outside London: Birmingham Ladywood 59 Wales: Rhondda 71
Most:
UK: Rochester and Strood 387 Wales: Vale of Glamorgan: 172 Scotland: Morray 114 N Ireland: East Antrim 110
Just shows how totally pointless they are really. At best 387 people in a constituency of 75,000 represents the sum total of bug**r. Still I suppose it gives the leaver posters the chance to jump up down like a bunch of excited schoolgirls.
All these petitions are pointless in the digital age, you could get 100,000 people to sign anything as long as it takes no effort - the one to ban Trump reached nearly 600,000 for heaven's sake.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
One of the big problems with these sorts of votes is that there are virtually No genuinely neutral sources of information, the closest I've seen on the EU ref to neutrality are the Electoral commission (Can only muse on process matters) and Martin Lewis (Doesn't want to get involved).
@CD13 If the government were arguing that we should leave the EU, I would expect it to explain its policy position to the public. It would be bizarre if it did not. Communication is a major part of government.
As @Alistair (great name, shame about the spelling) points out, the government has explained its policy to voters in a previous referendum. On that occasion, the opposite side had a clear and coherent policy that was also explained to voters.
Since lack of coherence on the Leave side is a feature not a bug, they have to accept the consequences of that feature. Leave have not attempted to put together a prospectus. They therefore cannot complain that it is not being sent to the British public.
Leave haven't got £9m of free money either, although no doubt that some sort of leaflet/prospectus, is in the offing. Don't forget my drinky tonight Alastair.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
Is there no end to the government advising the public what is good for us?
Let's have a retrospective petition on the SINDY leaflet. Better still let's carpet bomb Ayrshire with turnips !!
Nice treat for the sheep Jack and save us shopping, I never realised you were so altruistic.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
Yes but didn't the Scottish government also do the same thing? So both campaigns had a mail like this? A pro-Yes one from the Scottish Government and a pro-No one from the UK Government.
The issue here is that it is imbalanced. The UK Government is sending a pro-Remain one while the official Leave campaign is forbidden by law from sending one out that costs the same.
One campaign is muzzled, that is unreasonable.
There were multiple ones from the UK government and full civil service engaged etc
Ditto Scottish government too though. So it was balanced there's no balance here. One side hasn't even been officially launched yet and when it is it will be muzzled.
@CD13 If the government were arguing that we should leave the EU, I would expect it to explain its policy position to the public. It would be bizarre if it did not. Communication is a major part of government.
As @Alistair (great name, shame about the spelling) points out, the government has explained its policy to voters in a previous referendum. On that occasion, the opposite side had a clear and coherent policy that was also explained to voters.
Since lack of coherence on the Leave side is a feature not a bug, they have to accept the consequences of that feature. Leave have not attempted to put together a prospectus. They therefore cannot complain that it is not being sent to the British public.
I had a weird day yesterday when I was writing e-mails to an Alistair, an Alasdair and an Alastair pretty much at the same time. I am amazed that the EU has not thought this a suitable subject for regulation. Presumably after the referendum is out of the way....
I have a problem with my name being mis-spelt in the manner of a Blairite lickspittle.
@CD13 Governments are to govern. They have policies. If we have referenda, they should explain those policies to help inform the public in their decision-making process. If their opponents also have coherent policy positions, they should also be explained.
Those points are independent of the underlying proposition at issue in the referendum.
"Some people in the UK still have a sense of fair play - and that is a worthwhile button to press."
I remember in 1975, feeling the same. I was in favour of staying then, but the blatant partisanship made me uneasy. At least, I had the principles to see the bias and hypocrisy (pats younger self on back).
Can any remainer justify this? And I don't mean ...I favour remain so it's OK by me.
Mr Meeks, are you happy to win unfairly? Would you feel the same if Leave had this advantage?
By all means give the voters your version of the background and facts - but not with public money.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
Yes but didn't the Scottish government also do the same thing? So both campaigns had a mail like this? A pro-Yes one from the Scottish Government and a pro-No one from the UK Government.
I don't remember a Scottish Government Yes mailshot similar to the UK Government one. They did produce The White Paper 10 months before the referendum but they didn't mail that out to everyone.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
"Clinton has a 21-point advantage among Democrats with a strong attachment to the party, the poll found"
"while Sanders leads 61 percent to 32 percent among Democratic-leaning independents."
Closed primaries coming up after WY...
Indeed.
There's plenty of heat and noise in the Dem contest, although cold and quiet compared to the GOP, but the essentials of the Clinton/Sanders race remain the same. Sanders has to win over two thirds of the remaining pledged delegates within the PR framework to catch Hillary. It wont happen.
No, but the fact that she can't shake off a sepugenarian socialist shows just how weak a candidate she is. Two polls recently have given Sanders a national primaries lead, and the HuffPost average has her lead down to less than 5%.
Of course, national lead counts for little if it's in the wrong places (e.g. those that have already voted). Hillary will stumble over the line but only because her husband is popular with black voters; it's got little to do with her.
Could we discuss the Miliband boys changing their fathers will so that they inherited his house..and we could also throw in the frantic efforts of the Benn family that ensured they paid not a penny from the 5 million estate left by our favourite socialist.. Wedgy..
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
@DavidL A misspelt name is a long term hazard for any Alastair, but life certainly got a lot more complicated for me when my firm merged with a Scottish law firm in 2012.
There's always a faint note of disappointment when I speak with one of my Scottish partners for the first time and they hear my southern English accent.
I joined a 350 person Scottish company and I was stunned to discover that not only was there only 1 other Alistair in the whole company but that he spelled his name correctly as well.
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Just shows how totally pointless they are really. At best 387 people in a constituency of 75,000 represents the sum total of bug**r. Still I suppose it gives the leaver posters the chance to jump up down like a bunch of excited schoolgirls.
All these petitions are pointless in the digital age, you could get 100,000 people to sign anything as long as it takes no effort - the one to ban Trump reached nearly 600,000 for heaven's sake.
The maps are quite illuminating when it comes to priorities.
Banning Donald Trump is six times more important to the residents of Islington North as saving the steel industry.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
"Clinton has a 21-point advantage among Democrats with a strong attachment to the party, the poll found"
"while Sanders leads 61 percent to 32 percent among Democratic-leaning independents."
Closed primaries coming up after WY...
Indeed.
There's plenty of heat and noise in the Dem contest, although cold and quiet compared to the GOP, but the essentials of the Clinton/Sanders race remain the same. Sanders has to win over two thirds of the remaining pledged delegates within the PR framework to catch Hillary. It wont happen.
No, but the fact that she can't shake off a sepugenarian socialist shows just how weak a candidate she is. Two polls recently have given Sanders a national primaries lead, and the HuffPost average has her lead down to less than 5%.
Of course, national lead counts for little if it's in the wrong places (e.g. those that have already voted). Hillary will stumble over the line but only because her husband is popular with black voters; it's got little to do with her.
Really? Suppose she and Bill contested the nomination - who do you think would win?
@DavidL A misspelt name is a long term hazard for any Alastair, but life certainly got a lot more complicated for me when my firm merged with a Scottish law firm in 2012.
There's always a faint note of disappointment when I speak with one of my Scottish partners for the first time and they hear my southern English accent.
It's nice you speak to them. Some of the murmuring in Edinburgh is that after such "amalgamations" it is more like getting your instructions by e-mail.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
On Cameron- he really is growing into someone I admire. Considering his background he could easily been just another Bullingdon, fox hunting, wealthy, elitist, money grabbing, little England Tory. I couldn't see beyond Cameron's background during those early years.
He clearly though has rejected his background somewhere along the way and is a thoroughly decent man. His commitment to overseas aid, and I think to the NHS are real. His championing of the EU referendum is something to behold for Europhiles like myself. Also, if it hadn't been for the banking crisis, he would have maintained Labour's broadly social democratic commitment to public spending. His approach to the migrant crisis is based on common sense rather than anything more sinister.
The stuff that has come out this week with his dad just proves to me even more how far Cameron has grown away from his background.
He's obviously not a control freak either- which has got him into trouble with like of Lansley and now Hunt who have managed to score some own goals with the NHS.
The Tory party is probably going to struggle to recover after the EU referendum; and the Labour party faultlines with Corbyn as leader are just unsustainable.
Something tells me that British politics is going to go through some kind of major sea change this year- and I for one hope that Cameron remains on the scene for many more years.
Well if Tyson likes Dave I am reassured.
That is, reassured that my growing gut feeling that Dave is morphing into an untrustworthy hypocrite who I like less and less is probably correct.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
Yes but didn't the Scottish government also do the same thing? So both campaigns had a mail like this? A pro-Yes one from the Scottish Government and a pro-No one from the UK Government.
The issue here is that it is imbalanced. The UK Government is sending a pro-Remain one while the official Leave campaign is forbidden by law from sending one out that costs the same.
One campaign is muzzled, that is unreasonable.
There were multiple ones from the UK government and full civil service engaged etc
Ditto Scottish government too though. So it was balanced there's no balance here. One side hasn't even been officially launched yet and when it is it will be muzzled.
Hardly , if you compare the full resources of the UK government , media etc versus the paucity of the Scottish government's resources. UK establishment will use the full resources of the country to beat their opponents whilst hamstringing and smearing them at every opportunity. It is indeed the same as our referendum , a one sided affair resource wise at least.
"Clinton has a 21-point advantage among Democrats with a strong attachment to the party, the poll found"
"while Sanders leads 61 percent to 32 percent among Democratic-leaning independents."
Closed primaries coming up after WY...
Indeed.
There's plenty of heat and noise in the Dem contest, although cold and quiet compared to the GOP, but the essentials of the Clinton/Sanders race remain the same. Sanders has to win over two thirds of the remaining pledged delegates within the PR framework to catch Hillary. It wont happen.
No, but the fact that she can't shake off a sepugenarian socialist shows just how weak a candidate she is. Two polls recently have given Sanders a national primaries lead, and the HuffPost average has her lead down to less than 5%.
Of course, national lead counts for little if it's in the wrong places (e.g. those that have already voted). Hillary will stumble over the line but only because her husband is popular with black voters; it's got little to do with her.
Just to shake things up a little bit, Bill Clinton yesterday:
Saying that the new Black protest movement has become about protecting criminals, pissing off young black people all over the country. It was one of the top trending stories last night.
In the last few weeks I've gone from being undecided but inclined to vote Leave to being a Remain supporter. Every time I read PB I feel myself moving more strongly in that direction. Phrases like "monster EU" and fantasies about our being manipulated by a "euroloon cabal" might stiffen the morale of the devoted but..really...do they honestly believe that nonsense.
If you are swayed by the Tory Remain ultra right wing fanboys on here you were NEVER ever going to vote LEAVE, just kidding yourself.
Surprisingly enough there are far fewer of them than i would have expected/hoped
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
It's a sign of desperation and it'll prove counter-productive. But it's an abuse of the public purse, for sure.
I made this point the other night. I find lefty tax avoidance particularly nauseating.
At least with right wingers tax evasion is entirely compatible with being a selfish, individualistic, money grabbing bastard. Right wingers believe people should fend for themselves- so taking all measures to avoid giving any of their wealth to the state is quite consistent.
Could we discuss the Miliband boys changing their fathers will so that they inherited his house..and we could also throw in the frantic efforts of the Benn family that ensured they paid not a penny from the 5 million estate left by our favourite socialist.. Wedgy..
"to help inform the public in their decision-making process. If their opponents also have coherent policy positions, they should also be explained."
Away from lawyer speak, that's "To help inform the public about our position. If we consider our opponents also have coherent policy positions (but they don't and never will) they would also have been explained."
I await the next government tax-payer funded leaflet on 'why Labour are unfit to govern and why the LDs should not be allowed to stand for parliament.'
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
Like subsidies and price caps for unprofitable businesses?
Well quite. From now on, this will be cited as precedent.
Number 10 have repeatedly pulled these stunts during this referendum already. Attempting to block Sec of State from seeing EU documents was a total WTF for me.
As was diverting civil service staff to Remain work without the knowledge of their ministers.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
Thanks but what is it for, I'm guessing the leaflet?
Yeah, the complaint is the remain side have been given effectively a free mail shot.
I remember the universal outrage when the same thing happens during SindyRef. Or didn't, I can't remember.
What happened? Did the No side get a free mail shot and Yes didn't? I would have thought it would have been the other way around given the Governments position in Scotland would have been for Yes.
UK Governemnt spent around £720,000 on a similar glossy multipage mailshot to Scottish homes during SindyRef. £720,000 is about 8% of £9 million which works out at a Scotland population share of this UK wide EURef mailshot.
Yes but didn't the Scottish government also do the same thing? So both campaigns had a mail like this? A pro-Yes one from the Scottish Government and a pro-No one from the UK Government.
The issue here is that it is imbalanced. The UK Government is sending a pro-Remain one while the official Leave campaign is forbidden by law from sending one out that costs the same.
One campaign is muzzled, that is unreasonable.
There were multiple ones from the UK government and full civil service engaged etc
Ditto Scottish government too though. So it was balanced there's no balance here. One side hasn't even been officially launched yet and when it is it will be muzzled.
Hardly , if you compare the full resources of the UK government , media etc versus the paucity of the Scottish government's resources. UK establishment will use the full resources of the country to beat their opponents whilst hamstringing and smearing them at every opportunity. It is indeed the same as our referendum , a one sided affair resource wise at least.
The Scottish Government spent more on their deceitful White Paper than the UK government spent on its leaflet.
But I think MaxPB is wrong. All governments have always done this. The number of advertising campaigns that public departments feel the need to launch about entitlements etc in the year running up to elections is remarkable.
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
No, it's them being bastards. There're a heck of a lot of other issues facing the country outside the EU, and legislation needs to be passed. Blocking legislation for reasons other than the legislation's merits does no-one any good.
They're loons who think the EU is more important than good governance. Well, if that's their vision of good governance then perhaps we'd be better off being fully run from Brussels ...
I'd say you're both right. There is a bloc of Conservative MPs now forming a party within a party, obsessed by the EU and in internal opposition to the government. And this state of affairs is partly caused by bad party management.
It's also caused by those Conservative MPs behaving as if they didn't have the sense they were born with.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
I am - as PB'ers know - currently inclined to vote leave but the behaviour of some of these Tory MPs and the prospect of a Corbyn government because the Tories can't behave like fucking grown-ups is more likely to shift me to Remain. There are problems with the EU but they are as nothing compared to the problems of incompetent government and terrorist sympathizers in charge of it.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
I have been watching ads on the TV for the last few months telling me that the government has ensured pay rises for millions of people with the introduction of the Living Wage. Before that, it was pensions. I really don't see how this is any different. The government position is being explained. It is clearly propaganda, but it's not new.
@DavidL A misspelt name is a long term hazard for any Alastair, but life certainly got a lot more complicated for me when my firm merged with a Scottish law firm in 2012.
There's always a faint note of disappointment when I speak with one of my Scottish partners for the first time and they hear my southern English accent.
It's nice you speak to them. Some of the murmuring in Edinburgh is that after such "amalgamations" it is more like getting your instructions by e-mail.
That's DLA for you. FWIW, I understand it's no different to most other non-core offices.
The bigger point is of course that the Scottish firms were forced into mergers/takeovers when they were staring down the barrel of a gun rather when times were good in 2007/2008. There may be an analogy or two there.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
Eh, it's not exactly a major shift. Look at the Living Wage propaganda that the government put out to scarcely a murmur.
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
No, it's them being bastards. There're a heck of a lot of other issues facing the country outside the EU, and legislation needs to be passed. Blocking legislation for reasons other than the legislation's merits does no-one any good.
They're loons who think the EU is more important than good governance. Well, if that's their vision of good governance then perhaps we'd be better off being fully run from Brussels ...
I'd say you're both right. There is a bloc of Conservative MPs now forming a party within a party, obsessed by the EU and in internal opposition to the government. And this state of affairs is partly caused by bad party management.
It's also caused by those Conservative MPs behaving as if they didn't have the sense they were born with.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
I am - as PB'ers know - currently inclined to vote leave but the behaviour of some of these Tory MPs and the prospect of a Corbyn government because the Tories can't behave like fucking grown-ups is more likely to shift me to Remain. There are problems with the EU but they are as nothing compared to the problems of incompetent government and terrorist sympathizers in charge of it.
Could we discuss the Miliband boys changing their fathers will so that they inherited his house..and we could also throw in the frantic efforts of the Benn family that ensured they paid not a penny from the 5 million estate left by our favourite socialist.. Wedgy..
Did the Miliband brothers change their father's will? And did the Benn's not pay a single penny of inheritance tax on Tony's £5m estate? Absolutely scandalous if true. Libellous if not, of course.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Assuming that the Republicans come to their senses by 2020 - which is far from guaranteed - I can see Hillary winning fewer votes at that election than any major-party candidate since 1988.
@DavidL In a private setting I might introduce you to Meeks's theory of law firm management, but that wouldn't be suitable for a public forum until I'm safely retired.
Our managing partner is emphatically Scottish. Because my firm is the product of multiple mergers, individual smaller components feel less overwhelmed than might be expected - it is not as simple as "them vs us" because there are lots of thems and to the extent that the thems have house views, they are individual not monolithic. It's not like the Borg.
Mr. H, the worst propaganda at the moment is the Disrespect Nobody campaign, in which every victim of domestic violence/coercion is depicted as female, and every perpetrator as male. Particularly galling, given the campaign's name.
There is a great anecdote which sums up Hilary. In her early days dating Bill she was also seeing another chap at law college, but she chose Bill. The other chap moved into a successful law career.
When Hilary was first lady she was asked where she would be now if she had made a different choice and picked the other chap. She replied she would be the first lady.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Just to shake things up a little bit, Bill Clinton yesterday:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eI6l8wvn2c
Saying that the new Black protest movement has become about protecting criminals, pissing off young black people all over the country. It was one of the top trending stories last night.
Wow, he should have retired gracefully a year or two ago, he used to be a magnetic speaker, probably the most naturally gifted orator since Kennedy, but now he can't manage the crowd, his voice is cracking all over the place and starting to lose its clarity and he is going to embarrass himself. Compare the above to him only four years ago still at the peak of his powers.
Just shows how totally pointless they are really. At best 387 people in a constituency of 75,000 represents the sum total of bug**r. Still I suppose it gives the leaver posters the chance to jump up down like a bunch of excited schoolgirls.
All these petitions are pointless in the digital age, you could get 100,000 people to sign anything as long as it takes no effort - the one to ban Trump reached nearly 600,000 for heaven's sake.
The maps are quite illuminating when it comes to priorities.
Banning Donald Trump is six times more important to the residents of Islington North as saving the steel industry.
@DavidL In a private setting I might introduce you to Meeks's theory of law firm management, but that wouldn't be suitable for a public forum until I'm safely retired.
Our managing partner is emphatically Scottish. Because my firm is the product of multiple mergers, individual smaller components feel less overwhelmed than might be expected - it is not as simple as "them vs us" because there are lots of thems and to the extent that the thems have house views, they are individual not monolithic. It's not like the Borg.
My former managing partner used to say that there should always be an odd number on any subcommittee set up to make a decision but that 3 was too many. Anyone who thinks partnership bears any similarity to democracy has clearly not had the privilege.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
I have been watching ads on the TV for the last few months telling me that the government has ensured pay rises for millions of people with the introduction of the Living Wage. Before that, it was pensions. I really don't see how this is any different. The government position is being explained. It is clearly propaganda, but it's not new.
I didn't like that either, it has been an increasing trend under this government. If it was information such as, "the NHS is moving to a 7-day week, stop going to A&E for minor ailments" I would take no issue, but advertising a payrise just stinks of propaganda and Osborne trying to boost his profile with the public as "the man who gave you poor people a pay rise".
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
Do I spy once again PB's lone Federalist tentatively popping his head over the parapet?
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
The Scottish Government spent more on their deceitful White Paper than the UK government spent on its leaflet.
But I think MaxPB is wrong. All governments have always done this. The number of advertising campaigns that public departments feel the need to launch about entitlements etc in the year running up to elections is remarkable.
This is different David, I think we've moved from abstract, "look at what we've done for you" advertising that most people ignore to outright political campaigning on HMG branded leaflets warning you about how dangerous the other side is. If Labour were in government spending taxpayer money on HMG headed leaflets being delivered to every household saying that "the Tories will eat your first born, vote Labour" we would all be spitting mad. I also don't think the government shouldn't have an advertising budget for anything other than basic public service announcements. Do your tax return, quit smoking, stop coming to A&E etc...
@SkyNewsBreak 4m4 minutes ago Reuters: Syrian military says Islamic State has massacred 175 captured workers from a cement plant northeast of Damascus
Just utterly pointless random mass murder, of fellow Muslims. No military purpose. No sectarian "justification". Nothing. Just death for the sake of it.
Yep, they just enjoy killing people. It gives them sexual pleasure, clearly. Once you get to that level of depravity the drone really is the only solution.
We're in that awkward period where a Party leader is either losing their touch or their Party. Thatcher, Blair and now Cameron. The last two pre announced their own departure.
I'm increasingly seeing Cameron through the Blair prism. I thought he'd be a lot smarter given what befell Tony.
It creates terror, spreads fear, strengthens their death cult, gets us talking about them, gets them on the news- there are plenty of reasons for this atrocious slaughter, none of them particularly wholesome.
I think Southam's explanation that they get sexual pleasure out of it is just unhelpful and a bit silly really
@SkyNewsBreak 4m4 minutes ago Reuters: Syrian military says Islamic State has massacred 175 captured workers from a cement plant northeast of Damascus
Just utterly pointless random mass murder, of fellow Muslims. No military purpose. No sectarian "justification". Nothing. Just death for the sake of it.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
I have been watching ads on the TV for the last few months telling me that the government has ensured pay rises for millions of people with the introduction of the Living Wage. Before that, it was pensions. I really don't see how this is any different. The government position is being explained. It is clearly propaganda, but it's not new.
I didn't like that either, it has been an increasing trend under this government. If it was information such as, "the NHS is moving to a 7-day week, stop going to A&E for minor ailments" I would take no issue, but advertising a payrise just stinks of propaganda and Osborne trying to boost his profile with the public as "the man who gave you poor people a pay rise".
To be fair, Labour did it previously. The rubicon was crossed a long time ago. It would take a complete change of attitude among all politician of all kinds to change things now. And that is not going to happen. I agree that it represents a serious erosion of democracy.
@SkyNewsBreak 4m4 minutes ago Reuters: Syrian military says Islamic State has massacred 175 captured workers from a cement plant northeast of Damascus
Just utterly pointless random mass murder, of fellow Muslims. No military purpose. No sectarian "justification". Nothing. Just death for the sake of it.
They were probably Shia or Alawite if they were near Damascus. Most likely sectarian motivations.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd say Nixon achieved the most. Flawed but great.
The German interior ministry is reporting that the number of asylum claims has dramatically fallen in the first quarter of the year. Mission accomplished for Merkel and relief for the Remain campaign?
The interesting question is whether April will be the first month where arrivals are down year-over-year? So far, the trend has been down since the peak last summer, but it is unclear exactly why this is the case - is it the deal with Turkey? the weather? or the fact that there simply aren't as many people wanting (or being able to afford) the crossing?
Uh, all the borders have been sealed. Who wants to risk their lives sailing to Greece if you know you're just going to end up in a squalid camp, stuck in Greece?
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
No, it's them being bastards. There're a heck of a lot of other issues facing the country outside the EU, and legislation needs to be passed. Blocking legislation for reasons other than the legislation's merits does no-one any good.
They're loons who think the EU is more important than good governance. Well, if that's their vision of good governance then perhaps we'd be better off being fully run from Brussels ...
I'd say you're both right. There is a bloc of Conservative MPs now forming a party within a party, obsessed by the EU and in internal opposition to the government. And this state of affairs is partly caused by bad party management.
It's also caused by those Conservative MPs behaving as if they didn't have the sense they were born with.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
Like subsidies and price caps for unprofitable businesses?
Yes, precisely like that.
There can sometimes be good arguments for non-commercial loans or genuine restructuring grants to business. I always thought it absurd that the government didn't find a way to tide over the train manufacturers in Britain during the privatisation process in the 1990s, when it was clear that the gap in demand was a temporary thing. You can argue that they should have been more export-oriented but that was just one part of the restructuring needed.
However, continued subsidies for political reasons never ends well and there will always be pressure to give state-run industries subsidies for one reason or another.
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
Do I spy once again PB's lone Federalist tentatively popping his head over the parapet?
Switzerland has got by well enough as a multi-ethnic state. Nationality is a complex thing but then we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ought to know that well enough.
LBJ was a great president. He was the president Kennedy never was who transformed America- and anyway Kennedy was suffering from a debilitating, genetic blood disorder so maybe you are right he was lucky.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
No, it's them being bastards. There're a heck of a lot of other issues facing the country outside the EU, and legislation needs to be passed. Blocking legislation for reasons other than the legislation's merits does no-one any good.
They're loons who think the EU is more important than good governance. Well, if that's their vision of good governance then perhaps we'd be better off being fully run from Brussels ...
I'd say you're both right. There is a bloc of Conservative MPs now forming a party within a party, obsessed by the EU and in internal opposition to the government. And this state of affairs is partly caused by bad party management.
It's also caused by those Conservative MPs behaving as if they didn't have the sense they were born with.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
Seconded.
It is of course precisely these kinds of calculations which embolden the PM to behave in the high-handed and contemptuous fashion he does towards his MPs. But no-one is indispensable.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
What worries me about this leaflet is the precedent being set for use of taxpayer money on a political campaign. I really, really don't like the idea that future government's will be able to produce propaganda in the months leading up to the election with taxpayer funds. It's opened a door that should have stayed shut.
Eh, it's not exactly a major shift. Look at the Living Wage propaganda that the government put out to scarcely a murmur.
But there wasn't really an opposing point of view to it. The LW will be higher than Labour suggested, so they couldn't complain and there was only a token sort of groaning from industry. Of course many firms are now cutting back on taking on more staff to train up (my accountants certainly are.) but if there are going to be fewer people coming into the country - down to the tens of thousands annually - then maybe that is for the best.
LBJ was a great president. He was the president Kennedy never was who transformed America- and anyway Kennedy was suffering from a debilitating, genetic blood disorder so maybe you are right he was lucky.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd happily rank LBJ as the greatest president domestically since WWII. He's let down by his foreign policy so I'm not sure I'd rank him as 'great' unless his achievements are split into at home and abroad. Unfortunately, history remembers him mostly for the manner of his departure.
Actually I would say LBJ and David Cameron have similar political characteristics. Like LBJ who fought for civil and women's rights and so transformed America at great personal and political cost, DC is doing the same thing for Europe.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd say Nixon achieved the most. Flawed but great.
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
I'd say you're both right. There is a bloc of Conservative MPs now forming a party within a party, obsessed by the EU and in internal opposition to the government. And this state of affairs is partly caused by bad party management.
It's also caused by those Conservative MPs behaving as if they didn't have the sense they were born with.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
Seconded.
It is of course precisely these kinds of calculations which embolden the PM to behave in the high-handed and contemptuous fashion he does towards his MPs. But no-one is indispensable.
Yes, Cameron can be high handed and ultimately it may do for him as it did with Thatcher.
But that's no excuse for the Loony Tunes back benchers - if only they'd take lessons from Gove, who has had the best campaign of any major politician so far.
LBJ was a great president. He was the president Kennedy never was who transformed America- and anyway Kennedy was suffering from a debilitating, genetic blood disorder so maybe you are right he was lucky.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
Kennedy suffered from an endocrine disorder, Addison's Disease. It and its treatment gave him his famous golden complexion and other less welcome side-effects. LBJ was a grotesque vulgarian who did immeasurable harm to the US and the world.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No, they can vote against legislation if they think the legislation it is a daft idea - in fact, I'd commend them for doing so. We need better legislation.
That's a very different thing from voting against legislation not on the legislation's merits (or lack thereof), but because of a different issue. That's insane.
Actually I would say LBJ and David Cameron have similar political characteristics. Like LBJ who fought for civil and women's rights and so transformed America at great personal and political cost, DC is doing the same thing for Europe.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd say Nixon achieved the most. Flawed but great.
UNless I'm very much mistaken, LBJ got America into Vietnam, and Nixon got America Out.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
It depends what you want in politicians. I tend to agree with you, in terms of sheer steeliness and professionalism - I can't remember her making a seriously damaging public comment in that whole time, including Bill's affairs and all the thousands of interviews she must have given. The self-discipline and cold focus are amazing.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
And how do you feel about Leavers being labelled as loons, fruitcakes, frothers and cheesemen by Remainers?
I like 'cheesemen' as the new label. Perhaps in years to come it will be the term for a political party, like 'Tory', and historians will be able to track it all back to a post by an obscure London lawyer on a site about the once-legal practice of betting on politics.
I have no problem with Remain and Leave making personal remarks about each other.
It's when Leave frame the substance of the argument in terms of "EUSSR" and "EU monster" that I part company.
Isn't the USSR comparison attributable to Gorbachev?
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
The USSR failed because of its pseudo-Marxist politics and economics, not because it was a multi-national state.
Do I spy once again PB's lone Federalist tentatively popping his head over the parapet?
Switzerland has got by well enough as a multi-ethnic state. Nationality is a complex thing but then we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ought to know that well enough.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I didn't say Kennedy was formidable, Bill Clinton wasn't either, but they were both amazing politicians and hugely gifted orators that could win elections and then not do anything especially useful once they go in, much like Blair in that regard.
I assumed that Tyson was refering to Democrats, otherwise I would agree with you about Reagen, another gifted speaker, although not a good as Bill and Kennedy. I agree completely with your assessment of Hillary, very mediocre, largely I suspect because she seem to not "do" people, in the way that her husband and The Gipper did.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
Hey who wants democracy when you can have a red baw faced despot instead.
The great leaders are those that transform their countries and leave a legacy- LBJ certainly fits this bill (his corporate framework to regulate American capitalism was also innovative, modern and transformative); much in the same way that Atlee and Thatcher were transformative leaders in the UK.
Blair possibly could have been- but unfortunately Iraq, Gordon Brown's personality, and the banking crisis (albeit after his time, but whose seeds were sown during his tenure) stopped him from genuinely transforming the UK into a christian/social democratic country.
LBJ was a great president. He was the president Kennedy never was who transformed America- and anyway Kennedy was suffering from a debilitating, genetic blood disorder so maybe you are right he was lucky.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd happily rank LBJ as the greatest president domestically since WWII. He's let down by his foreign policy so I'm not sure I'd rank him as 'great' unless his achievements are split into at home and abroad. Unfortunately, history remembers him mostly for the manner of his departure.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No, they can vote against legislation if they think the legislation it is a daft idea - in fact, I'd commend them for doing so. We need better legislation.
That's a very different thing from voting against legislation not on the legislation's merits (or lack thereof), but because of a different issue. That's insane.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
It depends what you want in politicians. I tend to agree with you, in terms of sheer steeliness and professionalism - I can't remember her making a seriously damaging public comment in that whole time, including Bill's affairs and all the thousands of interviews she must have given. The self-discipline and cold focus are amazing.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
Do you think people in most of the West would like dynamic change? We've never had it so good.
Actually I would say LBJ and David Cameron have similar political characteristics. Like LBJ who fought for civil and women's rights and so transformed America at great personal and political cost, DC is doing the same thing for Europe.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd say Nixon achieved the most. Flawed but great.
UNless I'm very much mistaken, LBJ got America into Vietnam, and Nixon got America Out.
It's a matter of opinion. Kennedy probably got America in, though some aspects go right back to Eisenhower. The US didn't finally withdraw until Ford.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
It depends what you want in politicians. I tend to agree with you, in terms of sheer steeliness and professionalism - I can't remember her making a seriously damaging public comment in that whole time, including Bill's affairs and all the thousands of interviews she must have given. The self-discipline and cold focus are amazing.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
Do you think people in most of the West would like dynamic change? We've never had it so good.
That attitude is what drives people towards Trump and Sanders. A large constituency in the West has never had it so good, but just as many have never had it so sclerotic and grinding.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
Hillary appears to be above all a corporatist, he is going to continue to try and pitch warm words at blue collar workers while furthering causes which see their jobs move overseas, the very dynamic what has led to the rise in Trump in the first place. If anything I think America is going to be even more angry and even more looking for someone from outside politics by 2020. In the same way as Labour might win with an out and out lefty with much less baggage than Corbyn, and could see charismatic outsider winning in the States if they were much less prone to shooting from the hip than Trump.
And how do you feel about Leavers being labelled as loons, fruitcakes, frothers and cheesemen by Remainers?
I like 'cheesemen' as the new label. Perhaps in years to come it will be the term for a political party, like 'Tory', and historians will be able to track it all back to a post by an obscure London lawyer on a site about the once-legal practice of betting on politics.
Dunno how that ended up against me Richard. Not my post.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Kennedy got America into Vietnam- LBJ ramped it up. But you have to understand the context of postwar America, and the Democrats. After dealing with the internal politics of IKE, McCarthy, Soviet military expansion, Chinese military expansion, the nuclear proliferation..the Democrats had to be hawkish on foreign policy to get anywhere near power.
It was the Republicans that were able to act dovishely on foreign policy- their credentials- mostly because the military almost universally supported GOP- were never in doubt. Thus Nixon could get them out of Vietnam. And Ronnie Reagan, he of the evil empire, entered into a dialogue and peace agreement with the Soviets that stands out as one of the greatest in human history.
Actually I would say LBJ and David Cameron have similar political characteristics. Like LBJ who fought for civil and women's rights and so transformed America at great personal and political cost, DC is doing the same thing for Europe.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Aside from her husband, and I would assume Kennedy.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
Kennedy was not remotely formidable. He was very lucky to get shot when he did. Had he lived, he'd have beaten Goldwater in 1964 (assuming he was nominated but I suspect he would have been), but his legacy would now be that of Johnson's, without as much Civil Rights legislation to offset Vietnam.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'd say Nixon achieved the most. Flawed but great.
UNless I'm very much mistaken, LBJ got America into Vietnam, and Nixon got America Out.
And how do you feel about Leavers being labelled as loons, fruitcakes, frothers and cheesemen by Remainers?
I like 'cheesemen' as the new label. Perhaps in years to come it will be the term for a political party, like 'Tory', and historians will be able to track it all back to a post by an obscure London lawyer on a site about the once-legal practice of betting on politics.
Dunno how that ended up against me Richard. Not my post.
Apologies. I think that sometimes happens when the page hasn't been updated properly.
Credit for the term should of course be given to @Casino_Royale.
Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960, with a the narrowest of margins, but the whiff of corruption was never far away to taint his victory. A fascinating President, but for many of the wrong reasons.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
...I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins...
Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960, with a the narrowest of margins, but the whiff of corruption was never far away to taint his victory. A fascinating President, but for many of the wrong reasons.
His greatest attribute was his brother. And he had some brilliant speech writers. The Kennedy boom which (almost) paid for LBJ's great society should not be overlooked either.
My reading of the period (I was born a little too late to remember it first hand) was that even by 1963 America was a very different country from what it had been in the Eisenhower years and clearly set on the path for good or ill that was to come.
I've assumed people in general are equally likely to sign a petition, or not.
Therefore I think the petition map will correlate reasonably with eurosceptism by constituency.
I've also assumed turnout will roughly be equally spread around.
I've also used the following figures:
UK voting potential Population 44722000 Welsh voting potential population 2181800
So you might expect if Wales is voting as a bellwether to the rest of the UK 4.9% of signatures to be from Wales.
Totting up at the point there were 123041 signatures on the map, I came up with 5001 signatures in Wales. Which is just over 4% (So we might assume Wales is less eurosceptic than the UK generally)
If we assume 2-1 generally is correct (The Betfair price) then a difference of just 3% (9-4) is too low for Wales, hence
4-9 Wales to REMAIN in the EU @ Paddy Power is the recommendation.
Comments
Hansard 9 Jun 2015 : Column 1151:
Mr Lidington:The question I take from the debate is this: how do we provide the credible assurances that give effect to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—that the Government will be restrained in their use of public money and have no wish to compete with the umbrella campaign organisations whose job it will be to lead the yes and no campaigns? I acknowledge the constructive way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) responded to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on that point. As the Bill goes forward over future
And as noted on here in recent weeks, this trend will only become more marked over the next 10-15 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/07/dont-worry-about--eu-trade--it-does-not-matter/
All these petitions are pointless in the digital age, you could get 100,000 people to sign anything as long as it takes no effort - the one to ban Trump reached nearly 600,000 for heaven's sake.
Those points are independent of the underlying proposition at issue in the referendum.
25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
Banning Donald Trump is six times more important to the residents of Islington North as saving the steel industry.
Hillary is going to win because the Republicans have gone batshit and because she is against Trump, in the same way as Cameron won because Labour went batshit crazy and because he was against Ed Miliband. Neither of them are especially remarkable politicians.
That is, reassured that my growing gut feeling that Dave is morphing into an untrustworthy hypocrite who I like less and less is probably correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eI6l8wvn2c
Saying that the new Black protest movement has become about protecting criminals, pissing off young black people all over the country. It was one of the top trending stories last night.
At least with right wingers tax evasion is entirely compatible with being a selfish, individualistic, money grabbing bastard. Right wingers believe people should fend for themselves- so taking all measures to avoid giving any of their wealth to the state is quite consistent.
Thanks for the reply.
"to help inform the public in their decision-making process. If their opponents also have coherent policy positions, they should also be explained."
Away from lawyer speak, that's "To help inform the public about our position. If we consider our opponents also have coherent policy positions (but they don't and never will) they would also have been explained."
I await the next government tax-payer funded leaflet on 'why Labour are unfit to govern and why the LDs should not be allowed to stand for parliament.'
Mr. Max, whilst I share your contempt about the £9m leaflet, I don't think there's a risk of it setting a precedent for elections. Didn't last time.
And for those saying it happened last time, so what? Just because something happened in the past isn't an excuse for it to happen now.
Number 10 have repeatedly pulled these stunts during this referendum already. Attempting to block Sec of State from seeing EU documents was a total WTF for me.
As was diverting civil service staff to Remain work without the knowledge of their ministers.
But I think MaxPB is wrong. All governments have always done this. The number of advertising campaigns that public departments feel the need to launch about entitlements etc in the year running up to elections is remarkable.
They need to be reminded, repeatedly and forcibly, if necessary, that:-
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has.
2. The Tories do not have a large majority.
3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority.
4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him.
5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government.
6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The EU referendum is an important issue but to use it to take revenge on Cameron or to hold up other legislation will destroy one of the Tories' USPs i.e. competent government. It is beyond stupid.
The referendum is happening. Cameron has delivered on that. Those who are on the Leave side should concentrate on trying to make their case coherently and sensibly to the voters instead of moaning about every side issue.
I am - as PB'ers know - currently inclined to vote leave but the behaviour of some of these Tory MPs and the prospect of a Corbyn government because the Tories can't behave like fucking grown-ups is more likely to shift me to Remain. There are problems with the EU but they are as nothing compared to the problems of incompetent government and terrorist sympathizers in charge of it.
The bigger point is of course that the Scottish firms were forced into mergers/takeovers when they were staring down the barrel of a gun rather when times were good in 2007/2008. There may be an analogy or two there.
Our managing partner is emphatically Scottish. Because my firm is the product of multiple mergers, individual smaller components feel less overwhelmed than might be expected - it is not as simple as "them vs us" because there are lots of thems and to the extent that the thems have house views, they are individual not monolithic. It's not like the Borg.
There is a great anecdote which sums up Hilary. In her early days dating Bill she was also seeing another chap at law college, but she chose Bill. The other chap moved into a successful law career.
When Hilary was first lady she was asked where she would be now if she had made a different choice and picked the other chap. She replied she would be the first lady.
Behind every great man as they say.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4
Do I spy once again PB's lone Federalist tentatively popping his head over the parapet?
No, it's not new, but it is an erosion of democracy. Information which is "political" is in the eye of the beholder but some is fairly obvious.
Were I a Tory supporter, I hope I would feel uneasy about the living wage adverts too.
Comrade Meeks,
You have a viewpoint which differs from mine, but you're welcome to it, and I hope you have an enjoyable drinks do tonight.
If you're going back that far, and restricting yourself to the US, then Reagan has to outrank Hillary, as I suspect would several non-presidential politicians who dominated Congress in their time but I don't really know enough about that.
What exactly has Hillary achieved so far - the ability to just about keep an inherited political machine on side second time round, having fluffed her first chance? She was an unremarkable senator and not particularly distinguished Sec State.
I'm increasingly seeing Cameron through the Blair prism. I thought he'd be a lot smarter given what befell Tony.
I think Southam's explanation that they get sexual pleasure out of it is just unhelpful and a bit silly really
There can sometimes be good arguments for non-commercial loans or genuine restructuring grants to business. I always thought it absurd that the government didn't find a way to tide over the train manufacturers in Britain during the privatisation process in the 1990s, when it was clear that the gap in demand was a temporary thing. You can argue that they should have been more export-oriented but that was just one part of the restructuring needed.
However, continued subsidies for political reasons never ends well and there will always be pressure to give state-run industries subsidies for one reason or another.
Switzerland has got by well enough as a multi-ethnic state. Nationality is a complex thing but then we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ought to know that well enough.
But that's no excuse for the Loony Tunes back benchers - if only they'd take lessons from Gove, who has had the best campaign of any major politician so far.
LBJ was a grotesque vulgarian who did immeasurable harm to the US and the world.
That's a very different thing from voting against legislation not on the legislation's merits (or lack thereof), but because of a different issue. That's insane.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
I assumed that Tyson was refering to Democrats, otherwise I would agree with you about Reagen, another gifted speaker, although not a good as Bill and Kennedy. I agree completely with your assessment of Hillary, very mediocre, largely I suspect because she seem to not "do" people, in the way that her husband and The Gipper did.
Blair possibly could have been- but unfortunately Iraq, Gordon Brown's personality, and the banking crisis (albeit after his time, but whose seeds were sown during his tenure) stopped him from genuinely transforming the UK into a christian/social democratic country.
https://mylostbox.com/item/sam-missing-after-being-launched-into-space/
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
It was the Republicans that were able to act dovishely on foreign policy- their credentials- mostly because the military almost universally supported GOP- were never in doubt. Thus Nixon could get them out of Vietnam. And Ronnie Reagan, he of the evil empire, entered into a dialogue and peace agreement with the Soviets that stands out as one of the greatest in human history.
Credit for the term should of course be given to @Casino_Royale.
My reading of the period (I was born a little too late to remember it first hand) was that even by 1963 America was a very different country from what it had been in the Eisenhower years and clearly set on the path for good or ill that was to come.
Therefore I think the petition map will correlate reasonably with eurosceptism by constituency.
I've also assumed turnout will roughly be equally spread around.
I've also used the following figures:
UK voting potential Population 44722000
Welsh voting potential population 2181800
So you might expect if Wales is voting as a bellwether to the rest of the UK 4.9% of signatures to be from Wales.
Totting up at the point there were 123041 signatures on the map, I came up with 5001 signatures in Wales. Which is just over 4% (So we might assume Wales is less eurosceptic than the UK generally)
If we assume 2-1 generally is correct (The Betfair price) then a difference of just 3% (9-4) is too low for Wales, hence
4-9 Wales to REMAIN in the EU @ Paddy Power is the recommendation.