I think it'd be better if May was chosen by the MPs, without a members' vote. That's because the MPs are at least part of the GB democracy. Tory members aren't. Do ordinary people want a PM who's been chosen by 100,000 Tory party members?
Generally speaking, decision-making throughout British democracy is best left to MPs. That's their job.
Absurdist piffle. So party members, who after all help to get MPs and Councillors elected, don't get to have a say in the choice of leader but have to put up with whomsoever is anointed by the cabal of MPs.
May is already being eulogised by the Mail as the incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and for all the guff about Labour and "identity politics", the Conservatives are just as bad. Every woman is compared to Thatcher and every man gets the s-word thrown at him sooner or later.
May is a nasty authoritarian piece of work who some will love but others will come to loathe as she attacks personal freedoms in the dubious name of "security". The so-called Snoopers Charter is her handywork and it's interesting that while some LDs worked harmoniously with their Conservative counterparts (Webb with IDS and Alexander with Osborne being notable examples), May excluded LDs like Norman Baker from the decision making process.
Oh! So they are changing the basis of their legal system, massively slashing their top rates of tax, making it considerably easier to sack people, who knew!
France's income tax is nowhere near as bad as we think as every family member adds to your tax threshold. So, someone earning £100,000 with three kids is paying well under 30%.
That is, incidentally, an eminently sensible way of incentivising middle class reproduction....
Is this a priority? For the last 6 months Leavers have been telling us that Britain is becoming unsustainably overpopulated. Or is that just the wrong sort of population growth?
I think it was more of an off-the-cuff observation. Not every comment has to pertain to Brexit, surely?
Intriguing non-response to a simple question. Obviously worrying about overpopulation is so last week.
Alastair, stop being so...you. I live in one of the least densely populated areas in the UK. You can stack people like cordwood in the SE if that's what pleases y'all.
My view on mass immigration has been based on logistics rather than considering all people unlike me to be untermenschen.
I shall now return to the interesting phenomenon of low fertility in Western countries.
Do feel free to return to it. And I shall continue to feel free to keep pointing out that Leave was dishonest and pandered to xenophobia.
Do you seriously believe your team ran a decent and honest campaign? Your side don't hold the moral high ground here.
As it wasn't utterly mendacious and nakedly racist it has the edge.
Of course it was mendacious. Indeed it was outright dishonest.
Both campaigns were awful and I wanted both to lose. To try and pretend the Remain campaign was any less dishonest is ridiculous.
Given that it turns out that most of leave didn't want to win, I think they both did lose...
Oh! So they are changing the basis of their legal system, massively slashing their top rates of tax, making it considerably easier to sack people, who knew!
France's income tax is nowhere near as bad as we think as every family member adds to your tax threshold. So, someone earning £100,000 with three kids is paying well under 30%.
That is, incidentally, an eminently sensible way of incentivising middle class reproduction....
Is this a priority? For the last 6 months Leavers have been telling us that Britain is becoming unsustainably overpopulated. Or is that just the wrong sort of population growth?
I think it was more of an off-the-cuff observation. Not every comment has to pertain to Brexit, surely?
Intriguing non-response to a simple question. Obviously worrying about overpopulation is so last week.
Alastair, stop being so...you. I live in one of the least densely populated areas in the UK. You can stack people like cordwood in the SE if that's what pleases y'all.
My view on mass immigration has been based on logistics rather than considering all people unlike me to be untermenschen.
I shall now return to the interesting phenomenon of low fertility in Western countries.
Do feel free to return to it. And I shall continue to feel free to keep pointing out that Leave was dishonest and pandered to xenophobia.
Do you seriously believe your team ran a decent and honest campaign? Your side don't hold the moral high ground here.
As it wasn't utterly mendacious and nakedly racist it has the edge.
Of course it was mendacious. Indeed it was outright dishonest.
Both campaigns were awful and I wanted both to lose. To try and pretend the Remain campaign was any less dishonest is ridiculous.
Given that it turns out that most of leave didn't want to win, I think they both did lose...
That is, incidentally, an eminently sensible way of incentivising middle class reproduction....
Is this a priority? For the last 6 months Leavers have been telling us that Britain is becoming unsustainably overpopulated. Or is that just the wrong sort of population growth?
I think it was more of an off-the-cuff observation. Not every comment has to pertain to Brexit, surely?
Intriguing non-response to a simple question. Obviously worrying about overpopulation is so last week.
Alastair, stop being so...you. I live in one of the least densely populated areas in the UK. You can stack people like cordwood in the SE if that's what pleases y'all.
My view on mass immigration has been based on logistics rather than considering all people unlike me to be untermenschen.
I shall now return to the interesting phenomenon of low fertility in Western countries.
Do feel free to return to it. And I shall continue to feel free to keep pointing out that Leave was dishonest and pandered to xenophobia.
Do you seriously believe your team ran a decent and honest campaign? Your side don't hold the moral high ground here.
As it wasn't utterly mendacious and nakedly racist it has the edge.
Of course it was mendacious. Indeed it was outright dishonest.
Both campaigns were awful and I wanted both to lose. To try and pretend the Remain campaign was any less dishonest is ridiculous.
It's hard to think of anything quite as blatantly mendacious as Leave's headline "£350m a week for the NHS claim". My old dad simply refused to believe me when I pointed out that we don't actually send £350m a week to the EU; he reckoned that I must be wrong because the politicians wouldn't be allowed to lie about such a thing. He's very glad that he voted Leave and is now looking forward to the vast improvements in the NHS that he now believes are imminent.
TBH your old dad must be peculiarly naive if he thought politicians wouldn't indulge in a barefaced lie.
I'm probably of his vintage and experience has taught me to take most of what is asserted by such people with a truckload, not a pinch, of salt. And I was involved in politics for some years!
Well, he getting on a bit, has had a couple of strokes and has never been involved in politics, so I think a little naivety is understandable.
No, it is. When did you last drive on an English motorway? You have to go many miles up the M1 before you get the first chance to hit the speed limit. There is heavy traffic, always, everywhere.
England has the highest population density in Europe, for a large country. The only other EU country which is higher is Malta.
Have you been to Malta? It's horrible on the main island. Too many towns, too many people. That's where we're headed.
I drove on an English motorway last Autumn. It wasn't particularly busy. You may not be able to do 70 in many places but you spend a lot of time over 50.
But the other striking thing about it is that you're driving for miles through virtually nothing. You could add more lanes without a lot of serious logistical difficulties. There's very little of the kind of infrastructure you see in genuinely heavily populated areas like extended sections in tunnels or multiple decks stacked on top of each other. The limiting factor for doing this is cost, and that scales great when spread over more users.
The other thing you notice about England if you only drive there once a year, that might get lost to gradualism if you do it all the time, is that the roads are gradually getting better: Bypasses built, single-lane roads getting upgraded to two, etc. So I don't think the process of turning new people into taxes, and taxes into infrastructure, is particularly broken.
I drive up and down to Portugal and Italy and other parts of Europe several times a year and without doubt the driving in the UK is without fail the most miserable, slow and stressful section of every journey by a country mile.
Norway is horrific. The speed limit is something like 50 mph and quite a few people stick to it, which makes the queues very long and stressful.
In the UK the M5 is always dreadful.
Strange. Well-enforced speed limits generally increase throughput of traffic due to the reduction in the braking distance needed between each vehicle.
It's like escalators on the tube. The can carry more people faster if nobody walks up and everybody stands right and left.
They'd carry even more again if everybody walks up.
I shall add that had Leave been utterly high-minded, focusing on nothing other than theoretical arguments about sovereignty, you TSE et al would have jeered about what a bunch of amateurs we were, bringing knives to a gunfight.
Yes, anytime we complained about Project Fear we were asked "what did you expect?" I asked my dad what he thinks about the Leave campaign's NHS stuff and he wasn't impressed. But he pointed out that the Yes campaign told blatant lies to the people in 1975 so he doesn't care.
I can't say I'm happy with the Leave campaign. But, their opponent sought to bury them in shit, and they buried Remain in shit in turn, more effectively.
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
The whole point of standing on the right is that it gives people the option to stand or walk.
Strange. Well-enforced speed limits generally increase throughput of traffic due to the reduction in the braking distance needed between each vehicle.
I could swear I've seen research that indicates it's more complex than that in reality (in free-flowing traffic rather than in queues). It was that anything that causes cars to brake can cause a ripple down the chain of cars, with later cars often braking harder due to poor reaction times. If the gap is smaller, the driver behind brakes harder. This is lessened when cars are going faster as they *should* have bigger gaps.
I think! It sounded slightly counter-intuitive. But since reading it I've thought once or twice whether the momentary traffic jam where the road slows to a stop or crawl for no apparent reason might be down to such a phenomena.
If drivers were perfect you'd probably be right.
My boy has done some work on this as part of his electronic engineering course. The base idea is that when one joins a motorway one joins a convoy. From there on it is hands off and the convoy lead (itself computer controlled) takes over control of the acceleration and velocity.
It sounds to me like it should work. The best bit is that it would piss off young Darth Eagles whi has previously confessed on here that he ignores motorway regulations and will undertake, overtake and treat the speed limits as advisory as long as it suits him to do so. People driving like complete canutes probably kill more than any automated convoy system will ever do.
Isn't there going to be a trial of this with lorries on the M6 Shap-way? It'll improve fuel efficiency no end by allowing drafting.
But: the lorries still need drivers when off the motorway, so I can't see there being many gains by losing staff.
Also cars wanting to join from a sliproad when one of these convoys (for convenience let's call it a 'train') passes might have difficulty.
P'haps.
Once upon a time, I was in a convoy that took aid to the front in the Yugoslav "civil" war, and one of the vehicles was a diesel land rover driven by a peer of the realm no less. (No idea how he got involved, nice chap though....)
His piston rings were blowing and he was making appalling time. On the way home I persuaded him to sit in my slipstream on the motorway through Austria. It got another 10 miles an hour out of his motor!
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
Bond St and Baker St always seemed the most congested escalator stations to me.
Bond Street is a nightmare at the moment because they keep swapping things around because of the Crossrail works.
The thing about Holborn is that there are always at least two up escalators from the mezzanine to the ticket hall - and given the length very few people walk up. Therefore making one up escalator standing only increases capacity whilst still allowing the few who want to walk to do so.
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
The quickest way to settle the argument is to get the facts. its a 38% improvement just by changing people's habits..
Absolutely not who cares about flow rate?
It is about the sovereign right of the people either:
a) to stand on the right; or b) to walk on the left if you are in a hurry.
Not everyone is in a hurry and hence the sense of the current rule.
Plus for as long as I can remember people have blatantly ignored the "dogs must be carried" rule. Plenty of people on the escalators with no dogs.
And pushchairs!!! No one folds them these days!
If the notices ask them to fold pushchairs, no surprise if all the people who push babybuggies don't respond - they probably don't realise pushchair = buggy.
(Good evening everyone - and goodnight, for I am off now)
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
Go on, admit it: it wasn't your "grandfather", it was you...
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
It's an act of faith NHS = Labour, it seems a shame to take it from them.
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
Go on, admit it: it wasn't your "grandfather", it was you...
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
Anyhoo, here's a hypothesis. John Carpenter is regarded as a synth legend because of the soundtracks to his 70's/80's films. But the credit may be better attributed to his frequent collaborator Alan Howarth and (in a minor way) to Ennio Morricone (who did "The Thing"). This is borne out by the fact that Carpenter's post-Howarth films (Mouth of Madness onwards) have a poor soundtracks.
The 'Prince over the Water' is 3rd favourite on BF (D. Miliband - 9.6)
Tells you all you need to know about the febrile atmosphere of politics this week. He doesn't even live in the UK, never mind being an MP.
Who on Earth is backing him? He's not said anything on the subject of the Labour Party in months! All that's stopping me laying him for hundreds is the spineless Labour MPs who, like their new young voters, think a challenge is done on Twitter rather than by following the formal process.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There can't be automatic places, this is a series of individual votes on different days, with the electorate free to change their mind between votes. It's not AV! It's also a secret ballot, so public declarations mean precisely nothing!
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
Go on, admit it: it wasn't your "grandfather", it was you...
You're not still on that vampire things are you?
Vampires don't have forked tongues.
Lowly humans tend to interpret paranormal phenomena in terms of existing templates: vampires, aliens, witches, and so on. If I use the wrong word, I apologise.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
Rob D. Your right. It's the same thing. If you get more than 1/3 of the votes and hold on to them, logically you must make the final two.
By the way, I find your new avatar rather disconcerting!
There's no guarantee of holding on to votes especially if another candidate has momentum. It's a fresh vote every time and I believe it's also a secret one is it not?
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
Rob D. Your right. It's the same thing. If you get more than 1/3 of the votes and hold on to them, logically you must make the final two.
By the way, I find your new avatar rather disconcerting!
There's no guarantee of holding on to votes especially if another candidate has momentum. It's a fresh vote every time and I believe it's also a secret one is it not?
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Urm, people can walk up 2 abreast..
Walking on the left 81.25 people per minute per escalator Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
Rob D. Your right. It's the same thing. If you get more than 1/3 of the votes and hold on to them, logically you must make the final two.
By the way, I find your new avatar rather disconcerting!
There's no guarantee of holding on to votes especially if another candidate has momentum. It's a fresh vote every time and I believe it's also a secret one is it not?
Yes but if you have 110 votes at any stage you can't be eliminated at that stage because there are only 220 other votes between the rest. So as long as you continue with at least 110 votes you are guaranteed to be in the final two. If at any stage you have less than 110 votes, then the guarantee doesn't work.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
What has happened to Louise Mensch's accent? I'm listening to her appearance on Bill Maher and it's the most bizarre faux Manhattan socialite voice I've ever heard.
It doesn't matter he is learning from Nigel's playbook and going after the big non religious wwc vote. You know the same block that just won an election for a side the establishment said couldn't win.
Can't help thinking in there are as many pissed off voters in the former industrial towns of the south and the Midwest as the north of England, Midlands and Welsh Valleys.
'A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care. They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said.
“We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”'
[Also]
On Saturday night, Corbyn allies accused the parliamentary party of sabotaging Labour’s ability to hold the government to account.
One Labour source said those at the top of the party were livid when it emerged that files on a shared Labour party hard drive relating to the finance bill going through parliament had been deleted as the shadow finance secretary Rob Marris resigned.
An internal email seen by this newspaper said: “Unfortunately, it looks like someone from Rob Marris’s office has deleted the vast majority of the finance bill records and notes on each clause from the shared drive.”
I wonder if the Clinton's are over relying on black voters like Remain were relying on south Asian Brits who yes voted for remain but not in the numbers needed and Leave won Birmingham, Bradford, luton, Slough came close in Leicester, Leeds, Hounslow and fucking Newham!
Also had huge margins in greater Manchester tho not sure how polarised the white vs. Muslim vote was in those areas.
On thread - apart from Theresa May reinforcing her anticipated position of leader of the Conservative party by allowing a ballot of all its members, I trust she will then call a General Election so that the country as a whole can endorse her right to be Prime Minister.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
It has to be Gove. He can talk properly. Moreover, he has vision and personifies the kind of society we should be. Theresa May, on the other hand, is just the kind of grey-suit, yes-man, we don't need. It would be tragic if someone so anonymous, so poor at communicating, was given the tiller simply because likes sitting in the middle of the boat.
It's not difficult to accept it would have been introduced under either party Google it.
The NHS introduced by Labour was very different to the reformed health system proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Look up National Health Service Act 1946 and its progress through Parliament.
Well I could, but as I don't hold it as an article of faith, I'll probably not bother. You've convinced yourself there would be no NHS, if labour had lost in 45. I can't get myself worked up enough to care
My grandfather & his friends on the Tory benches were actively agitating for a national health service.
Go on, admit it: it wasn't your "grandfather", it was you...
You're not still on that vampire things are you?
Vampires don't have forked tongues.
Lowly humans tend to interpret paranormal phenomena in terms of existing templates: vampires, aliens, witches, and so on. If I use the wrong word, I apologise.
Most people just call us lizards. Not our real name, but it will suffice.
On thread - apart from Theresa May reinforcing her anticipated position of leader of the Conservative party by allowing a ballot of all its members, I trust she will then call a General Election so that the country as a whole can endorse her right to be Prime Minister.
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Oh Scott, how could you! I thought that if we had learned one thing in the last few weeks, it is that factual evidence has no value at all, and you should hang your head in shame at trying to convince someone to change their mind with reasoned arguments.
May is just short I believe of automatic place - 110 IIRC.
Is there such a thing as an automatic place? I thought it simply the figure at which coming third was virtually impossible?
There are 330 Tory MPs. You can't come third with 110 or more because the top two can't each have more than 110.
Yeah, so it's more like a guaranteed place, rather than an automatic one.
You can get 200 on the first ballot and still not make the final cut. No one has to say which way they voted and they can change their minds between rounds.
The first round is just to get rid of Fox.
After that, it gets serious.
Won't Crabb go first?
Hopefully it will be Fox, he needs a dose of humility combined with reality.
'A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care. They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said.
“We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”'
[Also]
On Saturday night, Corbyn allies accused the parliamentary party of sabotaging Labour’s ability to hold the government to account.
One Labour source said those at the top of the party were livid when it emerged that files on a shared Labour party hard drive relating to the finance bill going through parliament had been deleted as the shadow finance secretary Rob Marris resigned.
An internal email seen by this newspaper said: “Unfortunately, it looks like someone from Rob Marris’s office has deleted the vast majority of the finance bill records and notes on each clause from the shared drive.”
It has to be Gove. He can talk properly. Moreover, he has vision and personifies the kind of society we should be. Theresa May, on the other hand, is just the kind of grey-suit, yes-man, we don't need. It would be tragic if someone so anonymous, so poor at communicating, was given the tiller simply because likes sitting in the middle of the boat.
Regardless of his skills, in the 24 hour rolling news era, he is too reminiscent of Harry Enfield's Tory boy, he will be eviscerated by the press. Every TV appearance will see a loss in support.
That standing only escalator rule would annoy me rotten. Stupid to say it would be quicker for all if everyone stood still; it would be even quicker if everyone walked.
Except that is not necessarily true, is it? I though the whole point of the experiment was to prove standing increases capacity.
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
Oh Scott, how could you! I thought that if we had learned one thing in the last few weeks, it is that factual evidence has no value at all, and you should hang your head in shame at trying to convince someone to change their mind with reasoned arguments.
Standing may increase capacity, but it slows down people wot want to reach their exit or interchange quickly.
Comments
Clinton questioned by FBI over Emails
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36695722
Sorry if already posted
May is already being eulogised by the Mail as the incarnation of the Blessed Margaret and for all the guff about Labour and "identity politics", the Conservatives are just as bad. Every woman is compared to Thatcher and every man gets the s-word thrown at him sooner or later.
May is a nasty authoritarian piece of work who some will love but others will come to loathe as she attacks personal freedoms in the dubious name of "security". The so-called Snoopers Charter is her handywork and it's interesting that while some LDs worked harmoniously with their Conservative counterparts (Webb with IDS and Alexander with Osborne being notable examples), May excluded LDs like Norman Baker from the decision making process.
The whole point of standing on the right is that it gives people the option to stand or walk.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/07/i-accidentally-started-the-london-independence-movement-with-an-online-brexit-petition-then-things-went-crazy/
His piston rings were blowing and he was making appalling time. On the way home I persuaded him to sit in my slipstream on the motorway through Austria. It got another 10 miles an hour out of his motor!
If everyone stands, every step can accommodate 2 people. If everyone is walking, each person takes up at least 2 steps, so you may have quarter of the capacity, even if each person moves faster
EDIT: And even if they did, there would still be empty steps between them
Sturgeon will get Scotland, May England and both Wales and Ulster will be sold to Bill Gates.
If that didn't exist as a rule, then yes, they would.
It is also quicker than twice (for me, at least) as fast to walk up an escalator as to stand on it, negating the 2 step capacity principle.
Standing on the left 112.25 per minute per escalator
From https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/16/the-tube-at-a-standstill-why-tfl-stopped-people-walking-up-the-escalators
The quickest way to settle the argument is to get the facts. its a 38% improvement just by changing people's habits..
Those who choose to wait and stand are willing to cope with a slower journey. Those who walk are not.
We need to stop pandering to the LCD in all things.
It is about the sovereign right of the people either:
a) to stand on the right; or
b) to walk on the left if you are in a hurry.
Not everyone is in a hurry and hence the sense of the current rule.
Plus for as long as I can remember people have blatantly ignored the "dogs must be carried" rule. Plenty of people on the escalators with no dogs.
Tells you all you need to know about the febrile atmosphere of politics this week. He doesn't even live in the UK, never mind being an MP.
http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/
The thing about Holborn is that there are always at least two up escalators from the mezzanine to the ticket hall - and given the length very few people walk up. Therefore making one up escalator standing only increases capacity whilst still allowing the few who want to walk to do so.
(Good evening everyone - and goodnight, for I am off now)
Oh thank you, good to know.
WTF? Who put that hole in the road, it was supposed to be working ahead!
(I can't remember the exact quotes but comes from his digger series of children's books)
Vampires don't have forked tongues.
I was thinking of this one...
Discuss.
It's also a secret ballot, so public declarations mean precisely nothing!
By the way, I find your new avatar rather disconcerting!
The rules mean the bottom place candidate drops out and the contest continues into another round without him or her
Shy Leave will strike again
Joking apart, we could well have a situation where MPs declare for the establishment figure but vote something else.
Very very funny observations on the use of language in those though.
https://twitter.com/Max_Fisher/status/749244090584272896/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
After that, it gets serious.
https://youtu.be/GmGymFt308M
Blair and the military commanders must be getting a tad nervous now.
Not planning for what happens after a win seems to be a common failing.
Can't help thinking in there are as many pissed off voters in the former industrial towns of the south and the Midwest as the north of England, Midlands and Welsh Valleys.
*sobs*
“We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”'
[Also]
On Saturday night, Corbyn allies accused the parliamentary party of sabotaging Labour’s ability to hold the government to account.
One Labour source said those at the top of the party were livid when it emerged that files on a shared Labour party hard drive relating to the finance bill going through parliament had been deleted as the shadow finance secretary Rob Marris resigned.
An internal email seen by this newspaper said: “Unfortunately, it looks like someone from Rob Marris’s office has deleted the vast majority of the finance bill records and notes on each clause from the shared drive.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/corbyn-keeps-watson-arms-length?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Also had huge margins in greater Manchester tho not sure how polarised the white vs. Muslim vote was in those areas.
None of the candidates are proposing a general election. Sorry to disappoint.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-offer-mps-peace-8335768#ICID=sharebar_twitter
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-exclusively-reveals-hes-8335834