While a by-election would provide entertainment, and there could be further discomfort for TMay if LHR3 gets the go-ahead, this is much more important than a bit of political bickering.
Therefore, speaking from the greeny-red corner, I hope that the runway does not get built.
Speaking from the "wanting the best for the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" corner, I hope it does get the go ahead.
We don't need it - we can already transit through Amsterdam or Paris perfectly well.
Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.
Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?
BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:
Wrong side of London for customers Cost, inc transport links. Airspace close to AMS and CDG Estuary birds (remember Sully?) One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)
The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
In fact Manchester airport is already seeing expansion.
Will double capacity to ~50 million. Manchester already has two runways.
And Manchester Airports Group (which owns Stanstead as well) have said they will take the government to court if more than just one new runway at Heathrow is approved as they were not given the opportunity to compete.
Speaking from the "wanting the best for the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" corner, I hope it does get the go ahead.
We don't need it - we can already transit through Amsterdam or Paris perfectly well.
Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.
Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?
BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:
Wrong side of London for customers Cost, inc transport links. Airspace close to AMS and CDG Estuary birds (remember Sully?) One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)
The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.
Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia
Same problems apply to both though.
Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:
The key question regarding Zac is whether he would stand as an independent or seek to be reselected as the Conservative candidate. The Sun article which Mike links to says that he'd stand as an independent, but it's unclear whether that is based on what Zac has said or is simply the journalist's assumption.
It is important to realise that the local party is unlikely to want anyone other than Zac, and certainly unlikely to want anyone who isn't as strongly anti-R3 as he is. That doesn't seem to leave any good options for CCHQ. Of the available options, fudging things so that he stands again as the Conservative candidate would be the least bad.
His platform would be 'Re-Elect me and I will be ignored by my Party. If you want to punish them for going ahead with runway 3 boot me out'
Since he (and indeed any other Richmond MP) wouldn't have the power to stop the runway, whoever is elected will be 'ignored', and rightly so - Richmond doesn't have a veto on transport policy; its views have no more weight than anyone else's. But he can honestly and reasonably say that he'll continue to do everything he can to oppose the new runway. Richmond voters will support him in that.
I agree with the first part of your first sentence. From the point of view of an angry voter might they not want to punish the party that is building the new runway? Might they not think that re-electing a Conservative MP wouldn't be punishing that party at all?
Some will want to punish the party for building the new runway, and others will want to punish the silly twonk for wasting their tax money on an unnecessary by-election.
I agree with the first part of your first sentence. From the point of view of an angry voter might they not want to punish the party that is building the new runway? Might they not think that re-electing a Conservative MP wouldn't be punishing that party at all?
To an extent, yes, but if it is Zac they'll know they've got a vocal and high-profile MP on their side. I don't think he personally would be the target for any anger, so that would hugely mitigate any damage from the point of view of the Conservative Party - assuming Zac is happy to stand again as a Conservative, of course, which is unclear (to me at least) at the moment.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Free of the EU jackboot, you will be able to make yr camembert in Leicester and yr Toulouse sausage in Sutton Coldfield...
Except you wouldn't. This is the same as the Pol Roger "pints of champagne" story. The statute book won't magically revert back to New Year's Eve, 1972.
(I should have added an irony tag to that post)
I wasn't familiar with it. Was someone preventing the making of a 568.261ml bottle?
Must admit I am no expert. We do have Hokkaido camembert in Japan, however, so I assumed that this kind of thing might be possible
It's always been possible to make a 568.261ml bottle.
I wonder if that is what May meant by doing our own 'food labelling'. Dual units, and a choice to sell in imperial measures with a metric conversion if traders preferred.
It wouldn't surprise me if she repealed aspects of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, and it's secondary legislation. Indeed Hannah/Carswell suggested it in The Plan.
The key question regarding Zac is whether he would stand as an independent or seek to be reselected as the Conservative candidate. The Sun article which Mike links to says that he'd stand as an independent, but it's unclear whether that is based on what Zac has said or is simply the journalist's assumption.
It is important to realise that the local party is unlikely to want anyone other than Zac, and certainly unlikely to want anyone who isn't as strongly anti-R3 as he is. That doesn't seem to leave any good options for CCHQ. Of the available options, fudging things so that he stands again as the Conservative candidate would be the least bad.
His platform would be 'Re-Elect me and I will be ignored by my Party. If you want to punish them for going ahead with runway 3 boot me out'
Since he (and indeed any other Richmond MP) wouldn't have the power to stop the runway, whoever is elected will be 'ignored', and rightly so - Richmond doesn't have a veto on transport policy; its views have no more weight than anyone else's. But he can honestly and reasonably say that he'll continue to do everything he can to oppose the new runway. Richmond voters will support him in that.
I agree with the first part of your first sentence. From the point of view of an angry voter might they not want to punish the party that is building the new runway? Might they not think that re-electing a Conservative MP wouldn't be punishing that party at all?
Why would Richmond vote for Zac Goldsmith when there is only an election because he has failed to stop LHR 3?
I think both of you are working out the LibDem strategy. Throw in Brexit (Richmond is very Remain) and the unelected PM/return to old Toryism/Zak's racist 2016 campaign and you have the ingredients for a very interesting contest.
He doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between finding the support but assuming it won't all turn out, and not finding it there at all.
Why on earth would you think he doesn't understand that?
Because he explicitly tries to translate the polling error seen in Brexit - which was due to the former - to the US, where if anything it is the other side's voters that are assumed to be less reliable in turning out.
I think you're over-analysing what he says. He's just talking about the typical size of polling errors, and mentioning Brexit as an example. His point is just that "Polling errors of that magnitude are considerably more common than 6- or 7-point errors."
Very interesting to see that the SNP are now saying (FT, Times) that a soft Brexit won't trigger another ref.
God I love the smell of constitutional zugzwang in the morning.
Brexit completely screws sindependence. The Nats know it, hence the first signs of concealed infighting at their conference.
If it's hard Brexit then that's it. Scots won't be able to leave its biggest single market of all - the U.K. - only to find themselves clamouring to enter an inferior single market, the EU - and re-entrance to the EU is not easy or simple, see the Spanish talk of vetoes today.
If it's soft Brexit the Scots will breathe a huge sigh of relief and the appetite for another wrenching referendum and massive constitutional and political chaos will be zero. The vote would lose badly.
Add in the currency issues, oil, deficit, etc, and Independence in Scotland is likely finished for the foreseeable.
Indeed so, but how long will the SNats go on with the Sindy pretense before they are rumbled? It's the only thing that they have. Their record in office is hardly something to crow about. So they rely on pulling wool over people's eyes.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Speaking from the "wanting the best for the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" corner, I hope it does get the go ahead.
We don't need it - we can already transit through Amsterdam or Paris perfectly well.
Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?
BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:
Wrong side of London for customers Cost, inc transport links. Airspace close to AMS and CDG Estuary birds (remember Sully?) One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)
The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.
Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia
Same problems apply to both though.
Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:
Thanks for that. I went to school in the shadow of the then developing Sounthend Airport. Low flying propeller planes made teachers inaudible/ (This was the 50’s)
They will have ironed the brownshirts as well, the junta is well down the road
Can you believe it?
They're assigning government busy bodies to check up on every single child in the country!
Like teachers?
Teachers, who should be working with parents to educate children, rather than against parents as glorified social workers snooping for the state, as if it were China or Soviet Russia.
Especially given the situation of Scottish education....
They will have ironed the brownshirts as well, the junta is well down the road
Can you believe it?
They're assigning government busy bodies to check up on every single child in the country!
How oppressive can you get?
I suppose you could abolish all the local police forces and centralise them under one regime, the better to keep track of dissent.....
Of course, all the while you've got to keep going On and On and On and On and On and On On and On and On and On and On and On On and On and On and On and On and On....about how the problems you're failing to deal with after many years in government are someone else's fault.
Dear Dear , more propaganda from the Junta. They were merely appointing a named person that abused children coudl talk to if required , but of course Tories don't want to help abused children do they , they prefer them up chimneys.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Ouch. What on Earth was she thinking, to get involved with Corbyn's mob?
She's a moron. Always was. What Lenin called a "useful idiot". In this case Corbyn's useful idiot. The big surprise is why anyone took her seriously. There was a very amusing and excoriating take down of her in the Times quite a few years back. I have a copy of it somewhere. Anyone reading that would not have been in the least bit surprised at her recent actions.
Kirsty Young, the interviewer, did attempt to tackle Chakrabarti on this painful earnestness, and the latter’s defence appeared to be that a) she likes watching films; b) one of her favourite songs is Time after Time by Cyndi Lauper; and c) she is a parent. And when she added that “I hope I’m a reasonably rounded person” even she didn’t sound particularly convinced. Indeed, the interview itself was the most coherent argument yet made for the immediate reinstatement of Russell Brand. I’m a fairly liberal chap, and hearing about Liberty’s work should make me want to riot on the streets in support. Instead, when I hear Chakrabarti I feel like turning on Fox News and finding out about a paedophile whom I can hound out of his home.
Sample 2
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re making an unpopular, repetitive, contrary but nonetheless important argument, it is essential that you are not any of those things yourself. People need to feel inspired, or at least feel as though they are making up their own minds. You can bore, nag or guilt-trip only so many people into supporting you
Could there ever be a more perfect name for a Ukipper than Christian Holliday? The temptation to start letters to him "Dear Mr Diwali" would be overwhelming.
Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.
Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?
BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:
Wrong side of London for customers Cost, inc transport links. Airspace close to AMS and CDG Estuary birds (remember Sully?) One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)
The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.
Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia
Same problems apply to both though.
Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:
That's a very comprehensive wiki page, with all the pros and cons of the various sites proposed over the years.
After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.
The press today suggests May's line on Brexit may be softening.
To the extent that she has a 'line' that is.
Its hard Brexit that's going to be done softly. Or a soft Brexit with distinctly hard characteristics.
In the end, the winner will be UKIP.
The solution to this is that everything stays the same except for one day every year, when the borders are ceremonially closed, absolutely no foreigners are allowed in and the Prime Minister makes her speech at the Conservative Party conference.
Yesterday While flicking through several of the last threads I came accross one 'from a Bernie supporter...'. It was billed as 'an expose on Clinton's emails'. ALL ONE HOUR TWENTY MINUTES OF IT!
Foolishly I started listening...'Banks have to show more responsibility. They have to engage with the general public. They have to help small businesses etc etc'. Most of these revelations were followed by inanities like...WHAT..WHAT.....SHE WANTS TO MAKE US ADMIRE BANKERS!!!
Plato had posted this piece to show that Clinton was corrupt. It didn't. The quoted emails could have been written by Corbyn or even May. It's obvious that she had posted this ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTE revelation without reading it. I realised that this was a pattern. Posts full of meaningless graffitti unedited and unread.
My point is this. The threads are now littered with what can only be described as the incoherent ramblings of an infatuated twelve year old. As I haven't been following PB for a while perhaps I'm the only person who was sucked in. But for any newcomers be warned. To avoid the pit I fell into see the word 'PLATO' and sail on past.
It has become so bad in your absence that I have begun to move from a position of outright mockery, for actual concern for this poster's mental health. But there are limits to the conclusions one can and should draw from the rants of anonymous internet posters – it might well be a spoof account.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
Ouch. What on Earth was she thinking, to get involved with Corbyn's mob?
What was Baroness Chakrabati thinking?
Hmm....tricky one.....
I also chuckle at Corbyn's idea that an independent enquiry could be done by a Labour supporter / member.
Nothing to see here, move along
You're making the mistake of thinking that he wanted a rigorous independent inquiry. He didn't. Such an inquiry would have pointed the finger straight at him. He wanted a whitewash and a whitewash is what he got.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
Very interesting to see that the SNP are now saying (FT, Times) that a soft Brexit won't trigger another ref.
God I love the smell of constitutional zugzwang in the morning.
They said that from the off, the language, when it came down to IndyRef trigger, was always about the single market rather than the EU per say
It's really a piece of sophistry - their desire for independence is not predicated on the manner of the Brexit deal. Their ability to win it is. The threat is hollow.
Always good to get informed, in depth analysis with all the extra PB insight and objectivity that distance provides.
There are some real saddo's on here for sure , maybe if they took their heads out of their erchies noww and again they would see some reality.
Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.
Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia
Same problems apply to both though.
Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:
That's a very comprehensive wiki page, with all the pros and cons of the various sites proposed over the years.
After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.
It doesn't mention that Fairlop was seriously considered as an alternative to Heathrow in the 1940s, but otherwise looks like the info is all there.
I see Stansted was proposed for the third airport in 1963 and opened (as significantly enlarged) in 1991...
The press today suggests May's line on Brexit may be softening.
To the extent that she has a 'line' that is.
Its hard Brexit that's going to be done softly. Or a soft Brexit with distinctly hard characteristics.
In the end, the winner will be UKIP.
How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit. There is a clear majority in the country for a Soft Brexit, which we were assured by many Leavers would be the strategy, only for the Three Clowns of the Apocalypse to arrive on the scene with their deranged plans to remove us from the Single Market.
Ouch. What on Earth was she thinking, to get involved with Corbyn's mob?
She's a moron. Always was. What Lenin called a "useful idiot". In this case Corbyn's useful idiot. The big surprise is why anyone took her seriously. There was a very amusing and excoriating take down of her in the Times quite a few years back. I have a copy of it somewhere. Anyone reading that would not have been in the least bit surprised at her recent actions.
Kirsty Young, the interviewer, did attempt to tackle Chakrabarti on this painful earnestness, and the latter’s defence appeared to be that a) she likes watching films; b) one of her favourite songs is Time after Time by Cyndi Lauper; and c) she is a parent. And when she added that “I hope I’m a reasonably rounded person” even she didn’t sound particularly convinced. Indeed, the interview itself was the most coherent argument yet made for the immediate reinstatement of Russell Brand. I’m a fairly liberal chap, and hearing about Liberty’s work should make me want to riot on the streets in support. Instead, when I hear Chakrabarti I feel like turning on Fox News and finding out about a paedophile whom I can hound out of his home.
Sample 2
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re making an unpopular, repetitive, contrary but nonetheless important argument, it is essential that you are not any of those things yourself. People need to feel inspired, or at least feel as though they are making up their own minds. You can bore, nag or guilt-trip only so many people into supporting you
Yes, that's the one I think. Can't read the full article as don't have access. People like Shami undermine the very good case there is for civil liberties, that is the pity of it. A good cause, a necessary cause can be wholly undermined and discredited by those who are its most public and voluble face. Most of those who pop up speaking in favour of human rights fall into this category, I'm afraid.
Thanks for that. I went to school in the shadow of the then developing Sounthend Airport. Low flying propeller planes made teachers inaudible/ (This was the 50’s)
My favourite transport infra wonk titbit of all time concerns the proposal to link Maplin Airport via a motorway grade Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass:
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
The Tory majority in Richmond Park (against the LibDems) went from 4,000 in May 2010 to 23,000 in May 2015.
Of that 19,000 swing, about 14,000 was due to the LibDems losing votes to third parties, particularly Labour. The other 5,000 was an increase in Zac's personal vote which I would now estimate at about 10,000.
I think the LibDems could get back well over half the 14,000 they lost because of what is happening in Labour, because the LibDem brand is less toxic, and because it is a by election.
The Tory vote will be hit doubly hard by the LH3 decision and by May's approach to Brexit. They could lose 10,000 of the Tory vote. (Less if Zac stands again as a Tory though he is a Leaver unlike most Tories in Richmond Park).
So, four scenarios in order of my estimate of their probability:
1. Zac stands as a Tory - result 5,000 Tory majority 2. Zac doesn't stand again - result 5,000 LibDem majority 3. Zac stands as an independent with no Tory standing - too close to call 4. Zac stands as an independent against a Tory - LibDems come through the middle.
Very interesting to see that the SNP are now saying (FT, Times) that a soft Brexit won't trigger another ref.
God I love the smell of constitutional zugzwang in the morning.
Brexit completely screws sindependence. The Nats know it, hence the first signs of concealed infighting at their conference.
If it's hard Brexit then that's it. Scots won't be able to leave its biggest single market of all - the U.K. - only to find themselves clamouring to enter an inferior single market, the EU - and re-entrance to the EU is not easy or simple, see the Spanish talk of vetoes today.
If it's soft Brexit the Scots will breathe a huge sigh of relief and the appetite for another wrenching referendum and massive constitutional and political chaos will be zero. The vote would lose badly.
Add in the currency issues, oil, deficit, etc, and Independence in Scotland is likely finished for the foreseeable.
Indeed so, but how long will the SNats go on with the Sindy pretense before they are rumbled? It's the only thing that they have. Their record in office is hardly something to crow about. So they rely on pulling wool over people's eyes.
People in Scotland seem to be very happy with their record, do you have some evidence of what is wrong with their record at all. Facts I mean not just mumbo jumbo about Westminster made up deficits being applied etc.
Speaking from the "wanting the best for the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" corner, I hope it does get the go ahead.
We don't need it - we can already transit through Amsterdam or Paris perfectly well.
Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?
BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:
And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.
I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands
This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.
Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.
Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.
Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia
Same problems apply to both though.
Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:
Thanks for that. I went to school in the shadow of the then developing Sounthend Airport. Low flying propeller planes made teachers inaudible/ (This was the 50’s)
Today's pilots call the place "Sharon & Tracy International". It was my first solo landaway when I was training; the instructor just said 'go east, and if you see the sea underneath the aircraft, turn back'
The key question regarding Zac is whether he would stand as an independent or seek to be reselected as the Conservative candidate. The Sun article which Mike links to says that he'd stand as an independent, but it's unclear whether that is based on what Zac has said or is simply the journalist's assumption.
It is important to realise that the local party is unlikely to want anyone other than Zac, and certainly unlikely to want anyone who isn't as strongly anti-R3 as he is. That doesn't seem to leave any good options for CCHQ. Of the available options, fudging things so that he stands again as the Conservative candidate would be the least bad.
It would be much healthier for democracy if the 'wet' wing of the Tory from Osborne and Clarke to Goldsmith and TSE left and joined the Libdems.
It would stop the libdems tilting too far left and enable them to replace Labour as official opposition and perhaps one day even gain power.
The problem that the collapse of the old liberals has caused is that ambitious metropolitan liberals have for years joined the Tory party rather than the Libs/Libdems as there was no chance of getting into power in the Libs.
Now that Labour are imploding into irrelevance (the main reason being the discrediting of their philosophy, socialism, and the end of mass unskilled labour which gave rise to it), the only alternative to a one party Tory state is for the Libdems to be electable.
If Theresa May succeeds in eating into once solid Labour urban working class seats, it leaves the way forward to the Lib Dems to claim the wealthy urban seats as well as their traditional rural feifdoms.
But the Conservatives themselves would always prefer the opponent they have. FPTP+Labour is pretty much the perfect setup for the Tories.
Indeed.
The clever bit was managing to steal the Libs seats after 1918 when the universal francbise ensured the Tories lost their urban seats to Labour and had things not changed seen the tories down to a rump of 50 or so seats by the end of the 20s with Lib and Lab being the big beasts.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.
Same here Hurst , but I do like some of their cheeses. Though plenty of good UK ones as well so not a major issue.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
TIL that in California, where they have so many ballot propositions that they sometimes contradict each other, the rule is that in case of conflicting provisions, the one with the most "yes" votes wins.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
1. Remain 2. Leave and my favourite colour is blue 3. Leave and my favourite colour is red 4. Leave and my favourite colour is green 5. Leave and my favourite colour is pink 6. Leave and my favourite colour is none of the above
Oh look! A landslide for remain, who would have thought it!
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
That is, if it's a free bar!
If it is all there is I will even pay for it. Always tastes better free mind you.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
Gove went round reassuring everyone we would "stay within the free trade zone", nevertheless. That doesn't look very likely on the hard brexit being floated these last few weeks?
Thanks for that. I went to school in the shadow of the then developing Sounthend Airport. Low flying propeller planes made teachers inaudible/ (This was the 50’s)
My favourite transport infra wonk titbit of all time concerns the proposal to link Maplin Airport via a motorway grade Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass:
Yes, now you post it, I remeber it. Incidentally a Sunil Prasannan made a useful comment on the webiste you quoted. It was, I think 2006. I wonder how he’s got on since.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
"Voters were perfectly aware of the implications."
Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim. If you asked most people on the street what the EEA and Efta were, they wouldn't be able to tell you.
That's a very comprehensive wiki page, with all the pros and cons of the various sites proposed over the years.
After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.
Cheapest and least objectionable for whom, Mr. Pit? Not the taxpayers or the users of the M25, that's for sure. The associated infrastructure costs, which fall on the public purse, are estimated at, from memory, about three times those of putting in a second runway at Gatwick. Once work starts the M25, already subject to severe overload and pretty much permanent long delays is going to grind to a freaking halt. The knock on costs from non airport related businesses of having the motorway around the West side of London effective unusable for years are going to be huge.
The Tory majority in Richmond Park (against the LibDems) went from 4,000 in May 2010 to 23,000 in May 2015.
Of that 19,000 swing, about 14,000 was due to the LibDems losing votes to third parties, particularly Labour. The other 5,000 was an increase in Zac's personal vote which I would now estimate at about 10,000.
I think the LibDems could get back well over half the 14,000 they lost because of what is happening in Labour, because the LibDem brand is less toxic, and because it is a by election.
The Tory vote will be hit doubly hard by the LH3 decision and by May's approach to Brexit. They could lose 10,000 of the Tory vote. (Less if Zac stands again as a Tory though he is a Leaver unlike most Tories in Richmond Park).
So, four scenarios in order of my estimate of their probability:
1. Zac stands as a Tory - result 5,000 Tory majority 2. Zac doesn't stand again - result 5,000 LibDem majority 3. Zac stands as an independent with no Tory standing - too close to call 4. Zac stands as an independent against a Tory - LibDems come through the middle.
I'd swap 1 and 3 around in terms of outcome. I think Zac would outperform as an independent (with no Tory).
If Goldsmith does resign, I hope the local party deselect him.Hes the ultimate NIMBY and a big embarrassment for the Tories
Or a local very popular MP who is principled and does what he says he will do. Of course the Tories should deselect him and put someone in favour of the third runway up against him, it would be pointless to let him do a David Davis.
Actually, not putting someone up against Zac, given he'd be a reliably Brexit voice in the Commons might be a stroke of genius.
I think, in a three way battle, the LibDems would sneak through the middle, given that Richmond was 65:35 for Remain.
If the Tories don't put up a candidate against Zac they will be endorsing his stance.
Are his local party backing him? If so there could be an Official pro-Heathrow conservative and and an Unofficial anti-one. Seem to recall something like that’s happened before somewhere. Similar to but not quite the same as S.O. Davies in Merthyr many years ago.
No doubt Goldsmith's principled stand/tantrum (delete as appropriate) will have been factored in - I very much suspect once May has decided 'whats the right thing to do?' it won't matter a damn, one way or the other.....
Which is why the LibDems, whilst burnishing their long antipathy to R3, will endeavour to make the by-election about something else. Are there any other big issues going on?
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
If you were to use AV all problems would be solved.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
It does the fit the pattern that has emerged of the Brexiteers blaming any perceived problem with Brexit on those who warned and voted against it...
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
So wait, we should have listened to the Remain campaign for what happened post Brexit? Not the Conservative manifesto from 2015? Nor Daniel Hannan who said a narrow vote to Leave was not a vote for a large change in relationship?
I campaigned tirelessly on here before the referendum to include a supplementary question because I feared exactly this issue.
What is the mandate for the government, other than to leave the EU. There is is no explicit backing for what Leave is. And that's why I believe there should be a General Election sooner rather than later.
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
I didn't say they were thick. I say that your claim that they were perfectly aware of the implications was wrong – and it is demonstrably wrong. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
So wait, we should have listened to the Remain campaign for what happened post Brexit? Not the Conservative manifesto from 2015? Nor Daniel Hannan who said a narrow vote to Leave was not a vote for a large change in relationship?
I campaigned tirelessly on here before the referendum to include a supplementary question because I feared exactly this issue.
What is the mandate for the government, other than to leave the EU. There is is no explicit backing for what Leave is. And that's why I believe there should be a General Election sooner rather than later.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
Thanks for that. I went to school in the shadow of the then developing Sounthend Airport. Low flying propeller planes made teachers inaudible/ (This was the 50’s)
My favourite transport infra wonk titbit of all time concerns the proposal to link Maplin Airport via a motorway grade Southend-on-Sea southern by-pass:
Yes, now you post it, I remeber it. Incidentally a Sunil Prasannan made a useful comment on the webiste you quoted. It was, I think 2006. I wonder how he’s got on since.
One useful internet comment in 10 years? Could be worse I suppose.
Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q) I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent: 1. No - Stay in the UK 2. No - stay in the EU 3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
1. Remain 2. Leave because I want to trash the economy 3. Leave because I want to keep the immigrants out 4. Leave because I would rather do a deal with the Americans/Russians (delete as applicable) 5. Leave because I would rather decisions were taken by my British MP who has a safe seat and job for life in a parliament that fails miserably to represent my views 6. Leave because I didn't sleep very well and am not in a good mood today
Oh look! A landslide for remain, who would have thought it!
The Tory majority in Richmond Park (against the LibDems) went from 4,000 in May 2010 to 23,000 in May 2015.
Of that 19,000 swing, about 14,000 was due to the LibDems losing votes to third parties, particularly Labour. The other 5,000 was an increase in Zac's personal vote which I would now estimate at about 10,000.
I think the LibDems could get back well over half the 14,000 they lost because of what is happening in Labour, because the LibDem brand is less toxic, and because it is a by election.
The Tory vote will be hit doubly hard by the LH3 decision and by May's approach to Brexit. They could lose 10,000 of the Tory vote. (Less if Zac stands again as a Tory though he is a Leaver unlike most Tories in Richmond Park).
So, four scenarios in order of my estimate of their probability:
1. Zac stands as a Tory - result 5,000 Tory majority 2. Zac doesn't stand again - result 5,000 LibDem majority 3. Zac stands as an independent with no Tory standing - too close to call 4. Zac stands as an independent against a Tory - LibDems come through the middle.
I'd swap 1 and 3 around in terms of outcome. I think Zac would outperform as an independent (with no Tory).
Yes - you might be right.
In favour of (3) are Tories who want to punish the Government because of LH3. Against (3) are Tories who want to punish Zac's disloyalty. The many Tories who are strong Remainers will be neutral between (1) and (3). If Zac was a Remainer, then (3) would be a clear winner.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The Remainers wouldn't be making similar arguments about vote share or the country being ideologically split had they won. They would be talking about having a clear mandate for further EU integration. I thought the behaviour of some of the 45% since they lost was bad, I didn't expect to see it replicated across the UK, some of them have said some truly shameful things since their defeat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
Exactly. On the same argument, had Remain won we would now be joining the Euro and rolling out the carpet for half of Turkey.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.
Same here Hurst , but I do like some of their cheeses. Though plenty of good UK ones as well so not a major issue.
I am very partial to Camembert, a very nice one of which (Normandy made from unpasteurised Normandy milk) can be obtained from Lidl at a very reasonable price. I am also keen on some of their beers and, some, Normandy cider. However, as you say there are good UK produced alternatives for all three products.*
*I can thoroughly recommend Silly Moo cider from Trenchmore Farm, Cowfold, West Sussex. Produced not far from me and I have only recently discovered it, don't know if they do mail order though.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no
Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?
When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.
So there is no mandate to leave the single market.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no
Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?
When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.
So there is no mandate to leave the single market.
Taffys: I don't understand why what Remain said prior to the referendum has any implication for our future arrangements with the EU.
It's like saying that we *must* demand that Turkey becomes an EU member in the event of a 50% + 1 vote in favour of Remain, because Leave had warned of Turkey's imminent membership.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?
The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.
Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.
Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....
Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?
There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....
not decent ones that people want though
Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)
I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!
I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.
Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.
Same here Hurst , but I do like some of their cheeses. Though plenty of good UK ones as well so not a major issue.
I am very partial to Camembert, a very nice one of which (Normandy made from unpasteurised Normandy milk) can be obtained from Lidl at a very reasonable price. I am also keen on some of their beers and, some, Normandy cider. However, as you say there are good UK produced alternatives for all three products.*
*I can thoroughly recommend Silly Moo cider from Trenchmore Farm, Cowfold, West Sussex. Produced not far from me and I have only recently discovered it, don't know if they do mail order though.
Spending a few days not far from Canterbury at the end of the month. Would appear that some of their stockists are not far away, so might well have a look.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
Exactly. On the same argument, had Remain won we would now be joining the Euro and rolling out the carpet for half of Turkey.
But isn't that what would have happened? I'm sure that's what many of the more strident Leavers have been postulating, and I know what a balanced, cool view they have of things.
BBC Radio 4 Today "A machine-washable politician who’s come out of some Tupperware catalogue" - that's Jeremy Paxman's verdict on Hillary Clinton. #r4today https://t.co/3NZeaQ20o4
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no
Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?
When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.
So there is no mandate to leave the single market.
There is also no mandate not to leave the Single Market. It's for the government and parliament to decide what implementing Brexit means. But as I've said before, a solution that leaves Britain paying into the EU, subject to a European court and European directives and retaining free movement of people is not going to look much like Brexit to an awful lot of people.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
That's a very comprehensive wiki page, with all the pros and cons of the various sites proposed over the years.
After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.
Cheapest and least objectionable for whom, Mr. Pit? Not the taxpayers or the users of the M25, that's for sure. The associated infrastructure costs, which fall on the public purse, are estimated at, from memory, about three times those of putting in a second runway at Gatwick. Once work starts the M25, already subject to severe overload and pretty much permanent long delays is going to grind to a freaking halt. The knock on costs from non airport related businesses of having the motorway around the West side of London effective unusable for years are going to be huge.
But no-one wants two hubs. A second and third runway at Gatwick would need to be accompanied by (as a minimum): Widening the whole southern section of the M25 between the A3 and Dartford. Widening the M23 and some sort of an alternative route south of the M25 to the airport, so that one accident on the motorway can't shut the airport for hours and as an alternative route for local traffic. Improvement of rail links north to Croydon and Clapham, so that the 'express' can run more frequently than every half an hour. Electrification and dualling of the rail line to Reading (which goes through Guildford and aload of small towns). Possibly a spur around Farnborough to connect with the Basingstoke-Woking line.
Of course, one new runway and an airside Hyperloop or Maglev between LHR and LGW might also work
For those not in the know by the way, Business Insider is a painfully right-on lefty webrag that makes Twitter look like UKIP. It exudes a sort of Californian liberal snobbery. I'm utterly unsurprised to see an overtly biased post about Brexit there.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.
This conveniently ignores the number of regretful Remain voters - of whom I have met many. I suspect their number now exceeds the regretful leavers.
Polling vs PB Leaver anecdote.
Do we have any regretful remainer polls? Or 'if we re-ran the referendum today' polls?
I think if we reran the referendum tomorrow, it'd be 60:40 in favour of Leave.
Several polls show roughly 2/1 majorities against holding a second referendum, and a Com Res survey showed 62% viewed Britain's future positively after Brexit, compared to 35% who viewed it negatively, so I think that's likely.
@faisalislam: Number 10: PM "has full confidence" in Chancellor, "respects the independence of the @bankofengland" and is "clear in her support" of Carney
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
Exactly. On the same argument, had Remain won we would now be joining the Euro and rolling out the carpet for half of Turkey.
But isn't that what would have happened? I'm sure that's what many of the more strident Leavers have been postulating, and I know what a balanced, cool view they have of things.
I don't think we'd have adopted the Euro anytime soon, but I think that a Remain vote would certainly have been regarded as a green light for more integration.
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no
Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?
When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.
So there is no mandate to leave the single market.
There is also no mandate not to leave the Single Market.
''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
So wait, we should have listened to the Remain campaign for what happened post Brexit? Not the Conservative manifesto from 2015? Nor Daniel Hannan who said a narrow vote to Leave was not a vote for a large change in relationship?
I campaigned tirelessly on here before the referendum to include a supplementary question because I feared exactly this issue.
What is the mandate for the government, other than to leave the EU. There is is no explicit backing for what Leave is. And that's why I believe there should be a General Election sooner rather than later.
I would suggest the mandate for the Government is to negotiate the best terms they can for the UK to exit the EU. It is not in the gift of the UK (or EU) to dictate or impose the entirety of those terms, that is the purpose of the negotiation.
I find it an untenable belief that the majority of voters on both sides of the referendum did not understand this simple truth. The possibilities of economic disaster were adequately voiced by remain, as were the possibilities of the advantages of sovereignty, border control and economic freedom by leave.
Only a deaf idealist with no understanding of life would imagine that either side was offering a solution that would be recognisable as the result of negotiations.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
This conveniently ignores the number of regretful Remain voters - of whom I have met many. I suspect their number now exceeds the regretful leavers.
Polling vs PB Leaver anecdote.
Do we have any regretful remainer polls? Or 'if we re-ran the referendum today' polls?
I think if we reran the referendum tomorrow, it'd be 60:40 in favour of Leave.
Several polls show roughly 2/1 majorities against holding a second referendum, and a Com Res survey showed 62% viewed Britain's future positively after Brexit, compared to 35% who viewed it negatively, so I think that's likely.
There's no real evidence for either of those views.
The polling that has been done suggest that there has been relatively little shift in opinion either way with, if anything, a small move back towards Remain so that we are probably now close to neck-and-neck.
I agree that if MPs just came out and said that they wanted us to vote again, there would be a big 'Winchester effect' and a Leave win.
On the other hand, it isn't impossible to imagine a scenario where imminent hard brexit is creating all sorts of bad economic news and there is clamour for a rethink. If the people pushed the government into a vote in such circumstances (or following a GE that rejected the Brexiters) a Remain win is probable.
Comments
https://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/news/revealed-how-manchester-airports-1bn-upgrade-will-look
Will double capacity to ~50 million. Manchester already has two runways.
And Manchester Airports Group (which owns Stanstead as well) have said they will take the government to court if more than just one new runway at Heathrow is approved as they were not given the opportunity to compete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport
It wouldn't surprise me if she repealed aspects of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, and it's secondary legislation. Indeed Hannah/Carswell suggested it in The Plan.
It would also be popular.
Nothing to see here, move along
To the extent that she has a 'line' that is.
Its hard Brexit that's going to be done softly. Or a soft Brexit with distinctly hard characteristics.
In the end, the winner will be UKIP.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/sathnamsanghera/article1825788.ece
Sample 1
Kirsty Young, the interviewer, did attempt to tackle Chakrabarti on this painful earnestness, and the latter’s defence appeared to be that a) she likes watching films; b) one of her favourite songs is Time after Time by Cyndi Lauper; and c) she is a parent. And when she added that “I hope I’m a reasonably rounded person” even she didn’t sound particularly convinced. Indeed, the interview itself was the most coherent argument yet made for the immediate reinstatement of Russell Brand. I’m a fairly liberal chap, and hearing about Liberty’s work should make me want to riot on the streets in support. Instead, when I hear Chakrabarti I feel like turning on Fox News and finding out about a paedophile whom I can hound out of his home.
Sample 2
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re making an unpopular, repetitive, contrary but nonetheless important argument, it is essential that you are not any of those things yourself. People need to feel inspired, or at least feel as though they are making up their own minds. You can bore, nag or guilt-trip only so many people into supporting you
edit: fixed typo, and he is technically a tory
After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.
I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent:
1. No - Stay in the UK
2. No - stay in the EU
3. Yes
Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times
I see Stansted was proposed for the third airport in 1963 and opened (as significantly enlarged) in 1991...
Jeremy Hunt says 'balance must be found between immigration and economic success'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/balance-must-be-found-between-immigration-and-economic-success-a3370906.html
More power to Hammond's elbow.
http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/
As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.
Of that 19,000 swing, about 14,000 was due to the LibDems losing votes to third parties, particularly Labour. The other 5,000 was an increase in Zac's personal vote which I would now estimate at about 10,000.
I think the LibDems could get back well over half the 14,000 they lost because of what is happening in Labour, because the LibDem brand is less toxic, and because it is a by election.
The Tory vote will be hit doubly hard by the LH3 decision and by May's approach to Brexit. They could lose 10,000 of the Tory vote. (Less if Zac stands again as a Tory though he is a Leaver unlike most Tories in Richmond Park).
So, four scenarios in order of my estimate of their probability:
1. Zac stands as a Tory - result 5,000 Tory majority
2. Zac doesn't stand again - result 5,000 LibDem majority
3. Zac stands as an independent with no Tory standing - too close to call
4. Zac stands as an independent against a Tory - LibDems come through the middle.
ABC News
Det. Insp. Sheldon spent 8yrs researching whether 000 calls spiked w/ the full moon. The results are now in... https://t.co/btxfcEEiLH
The clever bit was managing to steal the Libs seats after 1918 when the universal francbise ensured the Tories lost their urban seats to Labour and had things not changed seen the tories down to a rump of 50 or so seats by the end of the 20s with Lib and Lab being the big beasts.
There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.
Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.
http://www.liquisearch.com/referendum/multiple-choice_referendums
Ducking cheek if you ask me.
Might be cheaper and easier to give Northern Ireland to the Republic
2. Leave and my favourite colour is blue
3. Leave and my favourite colour is red
4. Leave and my favourite colour is green
5. Leave and my favourite colour is pink
6. Leave and my favourite colour is none of the above
Oh look! A landslide for remain, who would have thought it!
Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim. If you asked most people on the street what the EEA and Efta were, they wouldn't be able to tell you.
Once work starts the M25, already subject to severe overload and pretty much permanent long delays is going to grind to a freaking halt. The knock on costs from non airport related businesses of having the motorway around the West side of London effective unusable for years are going to be huge.
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576
"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.
Not the Conservative manifesto from 2015?
Nor Daniel Hannan who said a narrow vote to Leave was not a vote for a large change in relationship?
I campaigned tirelessly on here before the referendum to include a supplementary question because I feared exactly this issue.
What is the mandate for the government, other than to leave the EU. There is is no explicit backing for what Leave is. And that's why I believe there should be a General Election sooner rather than later.
Still narrow, but raises an interesting question.
What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.
In favour of (3) are Tories who want to punish the Government because of LH3.
Against (3) are Tories who want to punish Zac's disloyalty.
The many Tories who are strong Remainers will be neutral between (1) and (3). If Zac was a Remainer, then (3) would be a clear winner.
*I can thoroughly recommend Silly Moo cider from Trenchmore Farm, Cowfold, West Sussex. Produced not far from me and I have only recently discovered it, don't know if they do mail order though.
http://www.trenchmore.co.uk/cowfold-cider/
Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?
When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.
So there is no mandate to leave the single market.
It's like saying that we *must* demand that Turkey becomes an EU member in the event of a 50% + 1 vote in favour of Remain, because Leave had warned of Turkey's imminent membership.
No 10: "The Prime Minister has full confidence in the Chancellor and the work he is doing." Oh dear.
Replaced by John Redwood? LOL
BBC Radio 4 Today
"A machine-washable politician who’s come out of some Tupperware catalogue" - that's Jeremy Paxman's verdict on Hillary Clinton. #r4today https://t.co/3NZeaQ20o4
Widening the whole southern section of the M25 between the A3 and Dartford.
Widening the M23 and some sort of an alternative route south of the M25 to the airport, so that one accident on the motorway can't shut the airport for hours and as an alternative route for local traffic.
Improvement of rail links north to Croydon and Clapham, so that the 'express' can run more frequently than every half an hour.
Electrification and dualling of the rail line to Reading (which goes through Guildford and aload of small towns). Possibly a spur around Farnborough to connect with the Basingstoke-Woking line.
Of course, one new runway and an airside Hyperloop or Maglev between LHR and LGW might also work
@faisalislam: Number 10: PM "has full confidence" in Chancellor, "respects the independence of the @bankofengland" and is "clear in her support" of Carney
I find it an untenable belief that the majority of voters on both sides of the referendum did not understand this simple truth. The possibilities of economic disaster were adequately voiced by remain, as were the possibilities of the advantages of sovereignty, border control and economic freedom by leave.
Only a deaf idealist with no understanding of life would imagine that either side was offering a solution that would be recognisable as the result of negotiations.
The polling that has been done suggest that there has been relatively little shift in opinion either way with, if anything, a small move back towards Remain so that we are probably now close to neck-and-neck.
I agree that if MPs just came out and said that they wanted us to vote again, there would be a big 'Winchester effect' and a Leave win.
On the other hand, it isn't impossible to imagine a scenario where imminent hard brexit is creating all sorts of bad economic news and there is clamour for a rethink. If the people pushed the government into a vote in such circumstances (or following a GE that rejected the Brexiters) a Remain win is probable.
All of these scenarios are of course unlikely.