Thanks Joff. I hope you continue to write articles for PB for a long time to come.
They are very repetitive IMO
Pushing Joffs view that a moderate Tory win is better than a Corbyn win and then claiming the left arent concerned about winning
In fairness, while there are plenty of Corbynistas who think they can win, there are definitely people out there who say they would rather lose under Corbyn than win under a Blair like figure - which is the same as saying a Tory win is preferable to the wrong kind of Labour win, and therefore implicitly that the Tories are not so bad it is worth compromising to get rid of them. It's a question of how widespread a view that is.
Im convinced Corbyn wont ever be allowed to fail on his own terms, because he wont acknowlesge that he is the problem.. A huge general election loss will be blamed on the plp, the media, the electorate...anyone but JC himself.
Will there be blame from anyone who matters to Corbyn and Corbynistas? The fight must go on, whatever the cost. A battle is lost but the war is still there to be won; cue The Red Flag.
How many Electoral college votes would Britain have just out of interest?
England 93 Scotland 9 Wales 5 NI 3
(to the nearest whole EC vote)
Did you correct for the fact that there is only 535 EVs to share around?
I did it for 538 for the USA as it is now, and added the UK votes (by Home Nation) proportionately.
A rather better proportion of the votes than we have in the EU parliament. Add in Canada, NZ and Australia and it gets really interesting.
Ontario would get 18 reps, New South Wales would get 10. NZ doesn't seem to be divided into official administrative units so as a whole they would get 6. And don't forget the Republic, they would get 7 (just, rounded!).
Joff, I like reading your articles, but the fact that you get all this praise by the pbCOM swivel eyes should worry you.
Well, like Dan Hodges before May 2015 it is what a lot of people want to hear, but it could still prove true. I think it a little pessimistic myself though. The PLP have played it very badly, and I think the impasse for all but a few may be ended if Corbyn wins big, there isn't the drive to really push back again.
It may well be that the realistic way forward for the left is to hang in there until the hard-left faction loses often enough to disillusion voters and to be disillusioned themselves.
By then, new thinkers will have emerged with a better idea of what is required of the left in the modern age, and another Kinnock-like figure may arise who has what it takes to rid the party of those clinging to the ideas of the last century.
I'm not sure hanging in there is an option. If the Corbynistas don't get them Joe Public will.
Even under Corbyn, if they survive deselection attempts, Labour will retain 150 or so members, possible more if the Tories screw up. There are so many seats that are completely safe so long as there is no split, no matter how bad the leader is (yes yes, the Liberals etc etc, but even considering that there doesn't seem, in England, anyone who can really take advantage, for all UKIP might like to), so there is time.
My old Mum used to tell me that tomorrow never comes, but it does and soon becomes yesterday
How many Electoral college votes would Britain have just out of interest?
England 93 Scotland 9 Wales 5 NI 3
(to the nearest whole EC vote)
Did you correct for the fact that there is only 535 EVs to share around?
I did it for 538 for the USA as it is now, and added the UK votes (by Home Nation) proportionately.
A rather better proportion of the votes than we have in the EU parliament. Add in Canada, NZ and Australia and it gets really interesting.
Ontario would get 18 reps, New South Wales would get 10. NZ doesn't seem to be divided into official administrative units so as a whole they would get 6. And don't forget the Republic, they would get 7 (just, rounded!).
Sounds a lot like an Imperial Federation! With the US added in...
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily.
All of the posters who were employed by the Leave and Remain camps haven't had their contracts extended.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily.
All of the posters who were employed by the Leave and Remain camps haven't had their contracts extended.
It's more that everyday politics fail to stir the soul. Labour's ineffectual writhing as Momentum's coils tighten aren't particularly edifying. One can only refight EUref so many times. The US has a choice between a low-rent Mussolini and a machine politician. I want them both to lose. Meh.
Joff, I like reading your articles, but the fact that you get all this praise by the pbCOM swivel eyes should worry you.
Well, like Dan Hodges before May 2015 it is what a lot of people want to hear, but it could still prove true. I think it a little pessimistic myself though. The PLP have played it very badly, and I think the impasse for all but a few may be ended if Corbyn wins big, there isn't the drive to really push back again.
It may well be that the realistic way forward for the left is to hang in there until the hard-left faction loses often enough to disillusion voters and to be disillusioned themselves.
By then, new thinkers will have emerged with a better idea of what is required of the left in the modern age, and another Kinnock-like figure may arise who has what it takes to rid the party of those clinging to the ideas of the last century.
I'm not sure hanging in there is an option. If the Corbynistas don't get them Joe Public will.
Even under Corbyn, if they survive deselection attempts, Labour will retain 150 or so members, possible more if the Tories screw up. There are so many seats that are completely safe so long as there is no split, no matter how bad the leader is (yes yes, the Liberals etc etc, but even considering that there doesn't seem, in England, anyone who can really take advantage, for all UKIP might like to), so there is time.
That's the kind of thinking which ended up losing 50 odd seats in Scotland to the SNP. Once a credible alternative to Labour appears with attractive policies and is named " anything thing but the Conservative Party", Labour could start to lose all those seats. After all the Liberal and Tory Parties are several centuries old. Labour are just a latecomer :-)
Joff, I like reading your articles, but the fact that you get all this praise by the pbCOM swivel eyes should worry you.
Well, like Dan Hodges before May 2015 it is what a lot of people want to hear, but it could still prove true. I think it a little pessimistic myself though. The PLP have played it very badly, and I think the impasse for all but a few may be ended if Corbyn wins big, there isn't the drive to really push back again.
It may well be that the realistic way forward for the left is to hang in there until the hard-left faction loses often enough to disillusion voters and to be disillusioned themselves.
By then, new thinkers will have emerged with a better idea of what is required of the left in the modern age, and another Kinnock-like figure may arise who has what it takes to rid the party of those clinging to the ideas of the last century.
I'm not sure hanging in there is an option. If the Corbynistas don't get them Joe Public will.
Even under Corbyn, if they survive deselection attempts, Labour will retain 150 or so members, possible more if the Tories screw up. There are so many seats that are completely safe so long as there is no split, no matter how bad the leader is (yes yes, the Liberals etc etc, but even considering that there doesn't seem, in England, anyone who can really take advantage, for all UKIP might like to), so there is time.
That's the kind of thinking which ended up losing 50 odd seats in Scotland to the SNP. Once a credible alternative to Labour appears with attractive policies and is named " anything thing but the Conservative Party", Labour could start to lose all those seats. After all the Liberal and Tory Parties are several centuries old. Labour are just a latecomer :-)
I know it's a possibility, I just cannot see a sea change occurring in England, even considering the example of SLAB. But it's not my party - as long as something fills the gap so there remains the realistic possibility of government change with regularity, keeping them all honest, that's what's important.
Joff, I like reading your articles, but the fact that you get all this praise by the pbCOM swivel eyes should worry you.
Well, like Dan Hodges before May 2015 it is what a lot of people want to hear, but it could still prove true. I think it a little pessimistic myself though. The PLP have played it very badly, and I think the impasse for all but a few may be ended if Corbyn wins big, there isn't the drive to really push back again.
It may well be that the realistic way forward for the left is to hang in there until the hard-left faction loses often enough to disillusion voters and to be disillusioned themselves.
By then, new thinkers will have emerged with a better idea of what is required of the left in the modern age, and another Kinnock-like figure may arise who has what it takes to rid the party of those clinging to the ideas of the last century.
I'm not sure hanging in there is an option. If the Corbynistas don't get them Joe Public will.
Even under Corbyn, if they survive deselection attempts, Labour will retain 150 or so members, possible more if the Tories screw up. There are so many seats that are completely safe so long as there is no split, no matter how bad the leader is (yes yes, the Liberals etc etc, but even considering that there doesn't seem, in England, anyone who can really take advantage, for all UKIP might like to), so there is time.
That's the kind of thinking which ended up losing 50 odd seats in Scotland to the SNP. Once a credible alternative to Labour appears with attractive policies and is named " anything thing but the Conservative Party", Labour could start to lose all those seats. After all the Liberal and Tory Parties are several centuries old. Labour are just a latecomer :-)
Euthanasia would seem like a kinder option and kindness is a Corbyn quality is it not?
Still, many thanks to Labour for keeping some level of political interest over the summer months. 2 years in a row too, very gracious of them, particularly with the Tories short changing us.
Normally stories from America about how black voters are being disenfranchised by changes to voting laws are over blown. The North Carolina case, however, is gobsmaking in it's naked racism - the state gathered data on how American-Americans voted and legislated to remove those avenues of voting.
Same old story as whenever there are honours appointments, 'x and y show what a disgrace the system is'.
More interesting is the four cabinet members proposed for knighthoods.
Thats the weirdest thing to me. Why does Hammond need a knighthood now. He will more than likely get on in 5-10 years regardless, is still in cabinet & played zero role in referendum.
Same old story as whenever there are honours appointments, 'x and y show what a disgrace the system is'.
More interesting is the four cabinet members proposed for knighthoods.
Thats the weirdest thing to me. Why does Hammond need a knighthood now. He will more than likely get on in 5-10 years regardless, is still in cabinet & played zero role in referendum.
I guess Cameron likes the man and would like him to have it now. Honestly I cannot get worked up over this stuff. If you have an honours system you will get doners and cronies rewarded (even if some of these are not accepted), and such things don't really mean anything so the harm is minimal (and since the 'wrong' people have always received honours, it doesn't devalue those people who do deserve recognition who get them any more than was already the case). At least its not handing out actual jobs like ambassadorships.
Peerages, now that is more serious, as you do actually have influence, genuine legislative influence, from those.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
Same old story as whenever there are honours appointments, 'x and y show what a disgrace the system is'.
More interesting is the four cabinet members proposed for knighthoods.
Thats the weirdest thing to me. Why does Hammond need a knighthood now. He will more than likely get on in 5-10 years regardless, is still in cabinet & played zero role in referendum.
I guess Cameron likes the man and would like him to have it now. Honestly I cannot get worked up over this stuff. If you have an honours system you will get doners and cronies rewarded (even if some of these are not accepted), and such things don't really mean anything so the harm is minimal (and since the 'wrong' people have always received honours, it doesn't devalue those people who do deserve recognition who get them any more than was already the case). At least its not handing out actual jobs like ambassadorships.
Peerages, now that is more serious, as you do actually have influence, genuine legislative influence, from those.
I also don't really get particularly worked up about them, just seemed like Hammond & Fallon are odd choices.
Mirror front page reports that bbc want to buy off sir.cliff by promoting his new album....please NOOOOOOO...use our money to settle in readies, anything but having to listen to cliffs music.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
An OBE for Samcam's stylist! Someone is taking the piss.
The article says Cameron has "requested" these honours. Presumably Madge plays the man from Del Monte. She must surely be aware (or someone should tell her) that 90%+ of the population will think that this stinks and that, if she respects her subjects, she should tell Cameron to piss off.
Anyhoo, now I come to think of it, there is something I can contribute.In the UK General Election and UK Referendums, the Electoral Commission registers and (eventually) publishes money-based data: expenditure, donations, loans, etc. Is there an equivalent body that does the same for US Presidential elections? Particularly the 2012 and 2016 POTUSs. If you do know this it would be useful, please.
An OBE for Samcam's stylist! Someone is taking the piss.
The article says Cameron has "requested" these honours. Presumably Madge plays the man from Del Monte. She must surely be aware (or someone should tell her) that 90%+ of the population will think that this stinks and that, if she respects her subjects, she should tell Cameron to piss off.
A gift for Corbyn methinks.
Nope. Everyone always says the honours lists stinks and how so and so proves it is nonsense and should be abolished, there is nothing in these, as far as the article indicates, that these are any more egregious than any other list before. Some names may be refused, I recall a bunch not granted in the last big set (David Laws, I seem to recall), and maybe May even makes some noises about being above doing something so grubby herself, but it would be sheer posturing nonsense.
Corbyn I presume is against the whole mess anyway, so while his people will use it I cannot see why it would have any more impact.
I equate it to the far more serious matter of NHS problems - my entire adult life I've heard nothing but how the NHS is in crisis, or hasn't recovered from the last crisis, or is about to enter a new crisis. It's to the point it might genuinely be in crisis but I'd have no clue as it is always claimed to be, and I simply no longer react to claims it is, because that's normal.
Complaints about honours is normal. Lame jokes about how 'nothing could discredit it further now' and the like are normal. Comments that appointment x means the system means nothing anymore are normal. Maybe a change will come one day, but in terms of outrage from Cameron's suggestions? Small fry.
If these appointments mean the system is discredited and means nothing anymore, then that was already the case, in which case it's hardly worthy of note, except as a pet peeve of mine that we all pretend its a new outrage each time.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
If people are prepared to come here and seriously argue that JC has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, then a reconstituted British Empire seems positively quotidian.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
If people are prepared to come here and seriously argue that JC has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, then a reconstituted British Empire seems positively quotidian.
BJO seems to think JC as PM is likely.
I am yet to meet anyone who opines "In 2015 I did not think Ed Milliband Left wing enough, so I voted Conservative/UKIP".
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
Its coming up August, Mr. Code, holiday time. It is going to get quiet. On top of that Mr Jessup has gone missing again (I hope his health is holding up) so that takes out a great source for engineering/trains conversation; Charles in in California, so that knocks out the city and the Church of England tips, there are no interesting cricket matches going on and the House is up. Unless something comes out of the leftfield it will be pretty quiet on here for the next month.
That said I'd love to hear your views on the empire as it sounds as if you have thought about it. But starting tomorrow please I am commanded to bed,
That's the kind of thinking which ended up losing 50 odd seats in Scotland to the SNP. Once a credible alternative to Labour appears with attractive policies and is named " anything thing but the Conservative Party", Labour could start to lose all those seats. After all the Liberal and Tory Parties are several centuries old. Labour are just a latecomer :-)
The odds for a replacement for Labour succeeding are a lot better now than in 1981. The should take rather more than 25 MPs: it could well be a majority of MPs defecting, including most of the biggest beasts. They should take some of the unions with them. There will be some major donors. There is no longer the tribal loyalty to Labour amongst voters there once might have been; much of the WWC have already deserted them and are up for grabs. Even without all this, the SDP/Liberal alliance came within a couple of percentage points in 1981. Seats will be split, and Tories and Kippers will come through the middle in places, but let's be clear: the objective for SDP2 in 2010 is not to win government; it's to replace Labour as the party of the left in order to have a shot at government in 2025. It's doable. Moreover, there's a big chunk of Tory-remainers whose vote could be up for grabs.
As against that, in 1983, Labour and the alliance were fighting for 55% of the vote. In 2010 it's likely that Labour, SDP2 and the rump Liberals will be fighting for a rather smaller share in 2020. And Owen Smith doesn't exactly seem the sort to enthuse the normally apathetic voters who have drifted away from Labour and who voted Leave. If the rebels get it wrong, they could still be just as far from their voters.
The Corbynites will get to keep the brand. But it's a terrible brand. It's named after something unpleasant to do; a section of the workforce that in it's essence barely exists anymore. It's associated with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, who - putting it mildly - alienate rather a lot of voters. There is a great opportunity for a new party, or agruably, two new parties: one Blairish, one Cruddasish. Either - or both - would seem a better option than gradual maginalisation.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
If people are prepared to come here and seriously argue that JC has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, then a reconstituted British Empire seems positively quotidian.
"quotidian"
Oi! Stop using words I have to look up.
Though what a 'malignant form of malaria' has to do with anything, I'm not quite sure.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
there are no interesting cricket matches going on
What are you talking about? Sri Lanka won a stirring contest this morning, and a record was broken when 0 runs were scored in 25+overs, that's interesting.
An OBE for Samcam's stylist! Someone is taking the piss.
The article says Cameron has "requested" these honours. Presumably Madge plays the man from Del Monte. She must surely be aware (or someone should tell her) that 90%+ of the population will think that this stinks and that, if she respects her subjects, she should tell Cameron to piss off.
A gift for Corbyn methinks.
Nope. Everyone always says the honours lists stinks and how so and so proves it is nonsense and should be abolished, there is nothing in these, as far as the article indicates, that these are any more egregious than any other list before. Some names may be refused, I recall a bunch not granted in the last big set (David Laws, I seem to recall), and maybe May even makes some noises about being above doing something so grubby herself, but it would be sheer posturing nonsense.
Corbyn I presume is against the whole mess anyway, so while his people will use it I cannot see why it would have any more impact.
You may well be right but it doesn't mollify me. It makes it worse that most people (I'm guessing) will dislike the honours system when used in such a self serving way, but will shrug their shoulders and move on (as I will tomorrow or the next day). Philip Green will rankle for longer.
Cameron really should have dished them out evenly to Leave/Remain. Probably would have been more difficult politically to give Farage a knighthood than a peerage though.
I wish at least the same old material would get recycled with a bit more invention that that. It's as devalued as papal vows of celibacy during the era of Borgia popes, that sort of thing.
There will be celebrations over at Housepricecrash tonight.
Landlords to be hit by new £5,000 Green Tax.
Basically anyone who is letting out a property after 2018 will have to pay to upgrade the property to energy band E. Things like new boilers insulation and the like. They will also no longer be elegible for green deal loans (which apparently have to be repaid by tenants (wtf?) and will have to pay out of their own pockets or get commercial loans.
Article dosent say but presumably the suandard will rise to D C B and A in stages in future years.
This measure was announced in the Budget in, I believe, 2012, and has constantly been in the LL trade press since. One of the better initiatives to come from Clegg Towers iirc.
The Green Deal was an over complex, expensive, mess which delivered about 25% of the projects compared to the previous scheme. The loans have never been competitive at roughly 8% to 10%, and Ts hate the higher energy bills to pay for LL capital spend.
Currently sensible LLs get mortgages at around 3% or loans at around 3%, or umpteen thousand pounds at 0% for 2-4 years or more on a number of credit cards for a one off fee of 1-3%.
Further they have been handing out free boilers and insulation etc under the ECO scheme for years (recently less available), even now available where T is eligible for certain benefits.
There's even a Golden Rule letout, unless they changed it, that means that properties are exempt if the works will not pay for themselves within a particular period (also protects listed properties).
Any landlords who cannot plan 3-5 years ahead using that little lot deserve everything they get, and don't really deserve to be landlords since they are not caring sufficiently for their tenants.
I am a sworn enemy of reams of futile regulation (see Selective Licensing designed for tiny areas used across whole Boroughs such as Newham), but this is a good one - except that they should have started with D as a minimum. The vast vast majority of properties can be taken to D quite easily - no problem for example in solid walled trad terraces.
I wish at least the same old material would get recycled with a bit more invention that that. It's as devalued as papal vows of celibacy during the era of Borgia popes, that sort of thing. Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should continue.
Reform of the honours system is clearly necessary. Just one of the many reasons why people have lost faith in politicians.
An OBE for Samcam's stylist! Someone is taking the piss.
The article says Cameron has "requested" these honours. Presumably Madge plays the man from Del Monte. She must surely be aware (or someone should tell her) that 90%+ of the population will think that this stinks and that, if she respects her subjects, she should tell Cameron to piss off.
A gift for Corbyn methinks.
Nope. Everyone always says the honours lists stinks and how so and so proves it is nonsense and should be abolished, there is nothing in these, as far as the article indicates, that these are any more egregious than any other list before. Some names may be refused, I recall a bunch not granted in the last big set (David Laws, I seem to recall), and maybe May even makes some noises about being above doing something so grubby herself, but it would be sheer posturing nonsense.
Corbyn I presume is against the whole mess anyway, so while his people will use it I cannot see why it would have any more impact.
You may well be right but it doesn't mollify me. It makes it worse that most people (I'm guessing) will dislike the honours system when used in such a self serving way, but will shrug their shoulders and move on (as I will tomorrow or the next day). Philip Green will rankle for longer.
Honours are just baubles. There only use is to mark someone out as a shyster or rogue so that others can avoid them.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
If people are prepared to come here and seriously argue that JC has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, then a reconstituted British Empire seems positively quotidian.
"quotidian"
Oi! Stop using words I have to look up.
Though what a 'malignant form of malaria' has to do with anything, I'm not quite sure.
The beauty of the English language (long may she reign) is having multiple definitions for even fancy city-slicker words like quotidian . For the lazy among us, it also means 'everyday, commonplace or ordinary'.
An OBE for Samcam's stylist! Someone is taking the piss.
The article says Cameron has "requested" these honours. Presumably Madge plays the man from Del Monte. She must surely be aware (or someone should tell her) that 90%+ of the population will think that this stinks and that, if she respects her subjects, she should tell Cameron to piss off.
A gift for Corbyn methinks.
Nope. Everyone always says the honours lists stinks and how so and so proves it is nonsense and should be abolished, there is nothing in these, as far as the article indicates, that these are any more egregious than any other list before. Some names may be refused, I recall a bunch not granted in the last big set (David Laws, I seem to recall), and maybe May even makes some noises about being above doing something so grubby herself, but it would be sheer posturing nonsense.
Corbyn I presume is against the whole mess anyway, so while his people will use it I cannot see why it would have any more impact.
You may well be right but it doesn't mollify me. It makes it worse that most people (I'm guessing) will dislike the honours system when used in such a self serving way, but will shrug their shoulders and move on (as I will tomorrow or the next day). Philip Green will rankle for longer.
I don't think there's a way to fix the system to be honest. Either we have one and take the political favours ones along with the genuinely deserving, or we don't have one at all - there are other methods of recognising peoples' works.
Cameron really should have dished them out evenly to Leave/Remain.
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Wow ...... traffic on PB.com has slowed dramatically over recent days, with so far today fewer than 600 posts on the two threads. Throughout the spring and summer during the build up to the Brexit vote and its aftermath, the number of posts invariably exceeded 2,000 and more often than not 3,000 daily. It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I come for the information and the banter, and there's a bit of a lull at the moment. Normally @PlatoLives and others post links to interesting articles, but there's a bit of a dearth at the moment[1]. The above-the-line article from @SouthamObserver is good (thank you sir) but as for the below-the-line banter, the discussion is currently revolving around Imperial Federation/Anglosphere Commonwealth/CANZUKUS reunification/Empire irredentists. There's nothing I can realistically contribute to such a discussion because it misunderstands the evolution of the British Empire in the 19th century, and its appeal lies more in fantasy than actuality. Hence the reduction in posting
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
In the usual spirit of PB discussions, you would rather be undertaking to put us all right!
If people are prepared to come here and seriously argue that JC has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, then a reconstituted British Empire seems positively quotidian.
"quotidian"
Oi! Stop using words I have to look up.
Though what a 'malignant form of malaria' has to do with anything, I'm not quite sure.
Depending on the life cycle of the particular parasite involved, different forms of malaria entail crises every so many days - hence the tertian/quartan agues you get in Shakespeare etc. - they are malarias with fevers every 3/4 days. So a quotidian ague would presumably be a 1 a day sort of malaria.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
I was of course referring to your upcoming hereditary peerage
Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should continue.
Reform of the honours system is clearly necessary. Just one of the many reasons why people have lost faith in politicians.
We'll have to disagree on that one. Of the reasons people have lost faith in politicians, that random doner number 132 gets a gong I just cannot see being more than a tiny speck in a great sea of reasons. As Foxinsoxuk says, they're just baubles. Peerages are serious, gongs have always been about rewarding cronies (well, so have peerages, but those are actually powerful so its more of an issue) - royals created new gongs to be able to dish out titles to cronies, it's built in.
As I said, we can have a system or not, I'm not fussed either way - that won't stop me getting bored with media figures who think they are so smart making the exact same point in the same way as last time it happened. At least mix it up.
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Knighthoods for the two Eds would be a nice gesture. Then we could refer to Lady Yvette too.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
I was of course referring to your upcoming hereditary peerage
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Knighthoods for the two Eds would be a nice gesture. Then we could refer to Lady Yvette too.
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Knighthoods for the two Eds would be a nice gesture. Then we could refer to Lady Yvette too.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
I was of course referring to your upcoming hereditary peerage
I only want one so that I can turn it down ;-)
I wonder, can you take it and immediately disclaim it under the Life Peerage Act?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
simplest way to do that is to add a "(p)" in the honours where appropriate.
So the ordinary person can differentiate between Dr foxinsoxuk OBE and Dr foxinsoxuk OBE(p) and draw their own conclusions.
Is this widely permitted inside the government ? :
From the Times peerages article.
" Vitol also supplied oil to the rebels in Libya in a 100m contract. That deal was arranged by a secret oil cell in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up by Tory minister Alan Duncan, who had previously acted as a consultant to Vitol "
Are secret cells inside the government supposed to be illegal ?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Is he the only person to have been elected to both houses?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Is he the only person to have been elected to both houses?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
Comments
What about John Cleese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U
In the 1956 POTUS election there were 530 EC votes for example (pre-statehood for Alaska and Hawaii)
It's also very noticeable that there are far fewer posters, with many of the erstwhile regulars having seemingly disappeared. Hopefully most will return after the holiday period.
California = 53 reps (adjusted for proportional population).
And that "With no standards and no principles, Clinton and her allies are now just a punchline."
That's the kind of thinking which ended up losing 50 odd seats in Scotland to the SNP.
Once a credible alternative to Labour appears with attractive policies and is named " anything thing but the Conservative Party", Labour could start to lose all those seats. After all the Liberal and Tory Parties are several centuries old. Labour are just a latecomer :-)
Can I just say: I'm still here.
*holds hands in solidarity with others*
Je suis PB.
Still, many thanks to Labour for keeping some level of political interest over the summer months. 2 years in a row too, very gracious of them, particularly with the Tories short changing us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/
More interesting is the four cabinet members proposed for knighthoods.
Why should a bunch of losers and in some cases serial losers be rewarded.
Peerages, now that is more serious, as you do actually have influence, genuine legislative influence, from those.
[1] with the exception of those below who are kind enough to post links to RealClearPolitics et al: thank you: I do read them, and please continue doing so
Any news on the "controversial hereditary peerage"?
A gift for Corbyn methinks.
The Queen could be exiled to Jamaica I suppose, and the Church disetablished with honours abolished (all in the Constitution).
Also worth noting that while England would have loads of representatives, we would have the same number of Senators as Wyoming or Delaware.
At least we would have the right to arm ourselves with assault rifles...
Corbyn I presume is against the whole mess anyway, so while his people will use it I cannot see why it would have any more impact.
I equate it to the far more serious matter of NHS problems - my entire adult life I've heard nothing but how the NHS is in crisis, or hasn't recovered from the last crisis, or is about to enter a new crisis. It's to the point it might genuinely be in crisis but I'd have no clue as it is always claimed to be, and I simply no longer react to claims it is, because that's normal.
Complaints about honours is normal. Lame jokes about how 'nothing could discredit it further now' and the like are normal. Comments that appointment x means the system means nothing anymore are normal. Maybe a change will come one day, but in terms of outrage from Cameron's suggestions? Small fry.
If these appointments mean the system is discredited and means nothing anymore, then that was already the case, in which case it's hardly worthy of note, except as a pet peeve of mine that we all pretend its a new outrage each time.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
I am yet to meet anyone who opines "In 2015 I did not think Ed Milliband Left wing enough, so I voted Conservative/UKIP".
Senator Nigel Farage (R) and Senator David Miliband (D)
Jeremy Corbyn leads a left wing secessionist movement called the United Kingdom Independence Party.
That said I'd love to hear your views on the empire as it sounds as if you have thought about it. But starting tomorrow please I am commanded to bed,
As against that, in 1983, Labour and the alliance were fighting for 55% of the vote. In 2010 it's likely that Labour, SDP2 and the rump Liberals will be fighting for a rather smaller share in 2020. And Owen Smith doesn't exactly seem the sort to enthuse the normally apathetic voters who have drifted away from Labour and who voted Leave. If the rebels get it wrong, they could still be just as far from their voters.
The Corbynites will get to keep the brand. But it's a terrible brand. It's named after something unpleasant to do; a section of the workforce that in it's essence barely exists anymore. It's associated with the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, who - putting it mildly - alienate rather a lot of voters. There is a great opportunity for a new party, or agruably, two new parties: one Blairish, one Cruddasish. Either - or both - would seem a better option than gradual maginalisation.
"quotidian"
Oi! Stop using words I have to look up.
Though what a 'malignant form of malaria' has to do with anything, I'm not quite sure.
Straw gets an honor for failing to be elected as an MP last year and putting together a crap EU campaign and losing again this year.
Is this some type of booby prize for losers ?
Can't understand why we need this crap.
Cameron really should have dished them out evenly to Leave/Remain. Probably would have been more difficult politically to give Farage a knighthood than a peerage though.
I wish at least the same old material would get recycled with a bit more invention that that. It's as devalued as papal vows of celibacy during the era of Borgia popes, that sort of thing.
This measure was announced in the Budget in, I believe, 2012, and has constantly been in the LL trade press since. One of the better initiatives to come from Clegg Towers iirc.
The Green Deal was an over complex, expensive, mess which delivered about 25% of the projects compared to the previous scheme. The loans have never been competitive at roughly 8% to 10%, and Ts hate the higher energy bills to pay for LL capital spend.
Currently sensible LLs get mortgages at around 3% or loans at around 3%, or umpteen thousand pounds at 0% for 2-4 years or more on a number of credit cards for a one off fee of 1-3%.
Further they have been handing out free boilers and insulation etc under the ECO scheme for years (recently less available), even now available where T is eligible for certain benefits.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/14/green-deal-scheme-did-not-deliver-energy-savings-audit-finds
There's even a Golden Rule letout, unless they changed it, that means that properties are exempt if the works will not pay for themselves within a particular period (also protects listed properties).
Any landlords who cannot plan 3-5 years ahead using that little lot deserve everything they get, and don't really deserve to be landlords since they are not caring sufficiently for their tenants.
I am a sworn enemy of reams of futile regulation (see Selective Licensing designed for tiny areas used across whole Boroughs such as Newham), but this is a good one - except that they should have started with D as a minimum. The vast vast majority of properties can be taken to D quite easily - no problem for example in solid walled trad terraces.
I won't comment on HousePriceCrash :-).
Many can make the assumption by reading the Times article that Cameron bombed Libya in order to award Vitol the oil contract.
Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should continue.
Reform of the honours system is clearly necessary. Just one of the many reasons why people have lost faith in politicians.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
Remember The original Commonwealth included Scotland, Wales and ALL of Ireland
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
As I said, we can have a system or not, I'm not fussed either way - that won't stop me getting bored with media figures who think they are so smart making the exact same point in the same way as last time it happened. At least mix it up.
7 candidates.
3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
So the ordinary person can differentiate between Dr foxinsoxuk OBE and Dr foxinsoxuk OBE(p) and draw their own conclusions.
From the Times peerages article.
" Vitol also supplied oil to the rebels in Libya in a 100m contract.
That deal was arranged by a secret oil cell in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up by Tory minister Alan Duncan, who had previously acted as a consultant to Vitol "
Are secret cells inside the government supposed to be illegal ?