Mr. Royale, aye. Sacking Morgan was a good move by May.
Mr. Labour, I agree. Most people, including a lot of Remain voters, will think "We've voted; get on with it."
If we end up not leaving or having a departure in name only, that'll aggravate a large part of the electorate, who may take their votes elsewhere.
The former is vanishingly unlikely but given it would have to happen on May's watch, would surely lead to a political realignment not seen since the rise of labour.
The latter, leaving in name only, is a matter of opinion and already attached to anything short of erecting a fence in the channel, so an option presented as such would lead to some taking their votes elsewhere but not necessarily large numbers, depending on how reasonable the accusation was.
I don't have any time for Banks, but I guess you could argue that the Soviet Union was a different thing altogether from today's Russians. I don't think I would argue that, but you could...
Plus it was the Americans that chose to side with the Taliban and precursor to Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Yes, as regards the history that is of course a rather important point.
And amazingly a policy Obama chose to replicate in Syria, by siding with Al-Qaida Al-Nusra against Russia/Assad.
I'd heard the other day the whole local devolution agenda, and what an incoherent humble that was, is seriously stalled since javid took over at dclg and may at no.10, I do t suppose anyone has any idea about that?
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
But that is not the point he is making.
Millions of people under 18 have had their right to free movement within the EU taken away. They could not vote.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
I find it incredible that so many eminent academics are willing to embarrass themselves like this.
How about addressing the points made?
The points made -- if I understand them right -- mean that no vote can be properly legitimate.
There are always people too young, or disbarred from voting for reasons of nationality, who will be affected by the consequences of any decision .There are always people who don't vote, presumably because they don't care enough, who will be affected by the consequences of any decision.
The Professor's opinions seems throughly anti-democratic, and so no wonder he is getting short shrift.
Of course, one of the huge -- absolutely huge -- beneficiaries of the EU has been Cambridge University.
How has the University helped to spread the wealth around Cambridge?
The wards in Cambridge that were heavily for Brexit were Abbey & Arbury & Kings Hedges. They are the Labour wards. These people have seen no benefit from the huge amounts of money that the University has received. Rather, their life has got worse as the influx of people has caused rents/housing in the City to soar.
Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.
Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.
My salary only increased beyond £25,000 when I was promoted to deputy head of faculty for the first time at the end of June this year.
In 2010 I was unemployed.
Wow. I knew teachers were poorly paid, but still.im on more than that and I'm just a clerk.
When I got my first job in 2013, my starting salary was £21,588. It rose a little the following year, up a band, but I also had a teaching and learning allowance (TLR) as Head of Subject that took it up to about £24,000. (These were traditionally separate pieces of pay bolted on top of basic salary, although this is now slowly changing.) I was raised one band again the following year to take me to £25,000. I then had a slight basic pay increase this year, plus a hefty rise in TLR for first deputy head and then head of faculty. So I'm now on over £30,000. The basic salary for a new teacher is about £1,000 more than in 2013, in line with inflation.
Automatic pay increases have now been abolished and teachers have to show they are deserving of being moved to the next grade. This has caused some resentment as (1) it's a lot of extra work to prove it and (2) teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice.
If you are interested, salary scales are set out in this document, including London weighting:
Please bear in mind also that most NQTs work on average a 60 hour week, and most teachers in the middle work over 50 hours a week.
While I’m not a teacher, many of my family are or have been, and currently both my elder grandchildren are. One of them is now a supply teacher and posted on her Facebook page the other day that that meant, since she’s covering a long term sick situation that she can really relate to and advise her students, more than if she had more responsibility. She teaches what I call 5th & 6th Formers.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
I find it incredible that so many eminent academics are willing to embarrass themselves like this.
I wonder where their funding comes from, to write such ridiculous pieces?
The Guardian... so the Cayman Islands.
Have any PBers been to the Cayman Islands? Are they particularly nice or totally covered in bank buildings?!
I did a couple of bits of work there in the late 1990's and they were then very nice and I doubt it will have changed much. If you are thinking of going there one piece of advice: do suggest to the locals that the Caymans are part of the West Indies or that they are West Indians. They will get very upset if you do.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
I have not suggested screwing anyone. Indeed I have made quite clear on here that my bet not withstanding I do not expect my preferred option to be accepted at all. I misjudged the mood of the people regarding immigration at the time of the referendum and whatever I might want that is not compatible with the new reality.
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
Well quite. There are remoAner arguments I have sympathy with, particularly with hardcore leavers and some former remain allies pretending if we don't get hardest Brexit that is basically ignoring the referendum, but suddenly deciding absolute majority is needed, not even a majority of eligible voters who choose to vote? Come off it.
I like that it specifies a professor pointed it out. Such stunning insight, professor.
If they want to respond seriously, someone could say it's hardly in the interests of the 64million to ignore the vote given the chaos that would cause, the kids can always campaign to rejoin the eu.
If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
But that is not the point he is making.
Millions of people under 18 have had their right to free movement within the EU taken away. They could not vote.
Who represents them?
The older, wiser people who did vote.
Those who are not entitled to vote, are not entitled to vote. The boundaries of the electorate have to be drawn somewhere. Besides which, for most young people, international opportunities are defined by exchange programmes for study, the ability to undertake global travel or backpacking, and working summers on temporary visas.
None of these will be affected by Brexit. We already have such schemes in places with Canada and Australia.
There are plenty of older people to whom their right to free movement within the EU was a far bigger deal than the youth, because they owned property and retired there.
Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.
Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.
My salary only increased beyond £25,000 when I was promoted to deputy head of faculty for the first time at the end of June this year.
In 2010 I was unemployed.
Wow. I knew teachers were poorly paid, but still.im on more than that and I'm just a clerk.
When I got my first job in 2013, my starting salary was £21,588. It rose a little the following year, up a band, but I also had a teaching and learning allowance (TLR) as Head of Subject that took it up to about £24,000. (These were traditionally separate pieces of pay bolted on top of basic salary, although this is now slowly changing.) I was raised one band again the following year to take me to £25,000. I then had a slight basic pay increase this year, plus a hefty rise in TLR for first deputy head and then head of faculty. So I'm now on over £30,000. The basic salary for a new teacher is about £1,000 more than in 2013, in line with inflation.
Automatic pay increases have now been abolished and teachers have to show they are deserving of being moved to the next grade. This has caused some resentment as (1) it's a lot of extra work to prove it and (2) teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice.
If you are interested, salary scales are set out in this document, including London weighting:
Please bear in mind also that most NQTs work on average a 60 hour week, and most teachers in the middle work over 50 hours a week.
While I’m not a teacher, many of my family are or have been, and currently both my elder grandchildren are. One of them is now a supply teacher and posted on her Facebook page the other day that that meant, since she’s covering a long term sick situation that she can really relate to and advise her students, more than if she had more responsibility. She teaches what I call 5th & 6th Formers.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
But that is not the point he is making.
Millions of people under 18 have had their right to free movement within the EU taken away. They could not vote.
I have not suggested screwing anyone. Indeed I have made quite clear on here that my bet not withstanding I do not expect my preferred option to be accepted at all. I misjudged the mood of the people regarding immigration at the time of the referendum and whatever I might want that is not compatible with the new reality.
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
Sorry about this. Thread’s very long and trying to trim it creats problems has created problems. What I meant to say was:
While I’m not a teacher, many of my family are or have been, and currently both my elder grandchildren are. One of them is now a supply teacher and posted on her Facebook page the other day that that meant, since she’s covering a long term sick situation that she can really relate to and advise her students, more than if she had more responsibility. She teaches what I call 5th & 6th Formers.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
Well quite. There are remoAner arguments I have sympathy with, particularly with hardcore leavers and some former remain allies pretending if we don't get hardest Brexit that is basically ignoring the referendum, but suddenly deciding absolute majority is needed, not even a majority of eligible voters who choose to vote? Come off it.
I like that it specifies a professor pointed it out. Such stunning insight, professor.
If they want to respond seriously, someone could say it's hardly in the interests of the 64million to ignore the vote given the chaos that would cause, the kids can always campaign to rejoin the eu.
If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result.
I don't think any referendum in the UK can be binding.
The Professor's argument is weak. Typically, 11-12 million votes are needed to form a government in this country, and that is considered legitimate. Yet, somehow, 17 m votes are not enough to make this referendum legitimate.
I'd have more respect for him if he were prepared to argue openly and honestly against democracy, as many great thinkers have done in the past. But, that would take moral courage.
Sorry about this. Thread’s very long and trying to trim it creats problems has created problems. What I meant to say was:
While I’m not a teacher, many of my family are or have been, and currently both my elder grandchildren are. One of them is now a supply teacher and posted on her Facebook page the other day that that meant, since she’s covering a long term sick situation that she can really relate to and advise her students, more than if she had more responsibility. She teaches what I call 5th & 6th Formers.
Annoying when that happens, I know!
Anyway, I am taking a choir out from school today, and have to dash. Have a good week everyone!
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
Well quite. There are remoAneaign to rejoin the eu.
If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result.
I don't think any referendum in the UK can be binding.
The government seemed to flip flop on that, at one point essentially arguing they will be from now on, as their lawyer said it would be absurd to suggest parliament asked the people to decide if they intended parliament to still get to make the final decision, so even if it does not say it in the act this one (and therefore any) shoudl be, but I believe at other times they did accept that in a technical sense this one was not (though morally it was).
I guess an act can specify a yes/no vote must be made into law, but such an act could always be repealed?
As a leaver I'm quite happy for parliament to formally trigger things, if that is what the law as currently constituted demands, as it also seems quite appropriate. If they chose not to do that, that is a political issue with a very clear solution.
The boundaries of the electorate have to be drawn somewhere.
I'm not sure that's true - you could just let any resident human vote and nothing bad would happen. 12-year-olds as a whole probably aren't great at assessing the relative merits of the various options, but neither are dementia sufferers and they're not prohibited from voting either. And the tiny minority of 12-year-olds who actually bothered to turn out would probably be nerdy political kids who were somewhat more well-informed than the median voter.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Well quite. There are remoAneaign to rejoin the eu.
If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result.
I don't think any referendum in the UK can be binding.
The government seemed to flip flop on that, at one point essentially arguing they will be from now on, as their lawyer said it would be absurd to suggest parliament asked the people to decide if they intended parliament to still get to make the final decision, so even if it does not say it in the act this one (and therefore any) shoudl be, but I believe at other times they did accept that in a technical sense this one was not (though morally it was).
I guess an act can specify a yes/no vote must be made into law, but such an act could always be repealed?
As a leaver I'm quite happy for parliament to formally trigger things, if that is what the law as currently constituted demands, as it also seems quite appropriate. If they chose not to do that, that is a political issue with a very clear solution.
By electing a majority Conservative government, with a manifesto commitment to hold a Brexit referendum, the electorate chose not to give their elected representatives the right to decide on this issue - they decided to reserve this issue for themselves to decide.
It isn't parliament that grants the people the right to decide, it is the people who choose to keep the decision to themselves.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
I find it incredible that so many eminent academics are willing to embarrass themselves like this.
I wonder where their funding comes from, to write such ridiculous pieces?
The Guardian... so the Cayman Islands.
Have any PBers been to the Cayman Islands? Are they particularly nice or totally covered in bank buildings?!
Lived and worked there for 5 years. Grand Cayman is a nice place to live - providing you have the money. More similar to a nice safe version of parts of Florida than the green tropical hilly Caribbean that is more common elsewhere. No hassle on beaches as the locals have no need to push beads and stuff! Some beaches even had free electricity to plug in music and more than half the workers are foreign. DM me for more advice if required.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself.
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable.
But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post.
And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
By electing a majority Conservative government, with a manifesto commitment to hold a Brexit referendum, the electorate chose not to give their elected representatives the right to decide on this issue - they decided to reserve this issue for themselves to decide.
It isn't parliament that grants the people the right to decide, it is the people who choose to keep the decision to themselves.
Just imagine if more than six Tory MPs are charged and convicted over election expenses, then some people will argue Brexit should be reversed as there was never any mandate for the referendum.
I think there should be a court case held to determine the legality of the referendum in those circumstances with an appeal to the CJEU if necessary
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
Very true; applies to all professions, of course. Before I retired I was involved with what is nowadays called “Continuing Professional Development “ and we required people produce evidence that, from their experiences they had “larned summat”.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The government seemed to flip flop on that, at one point essentially arguing they will be from now on, as their lawyer said it would be absurd to suggest parliament asked the people to decide if they intended parliament to still get to make the final decision, so even if it does not say it in the act this one (and therefore any) shoudl be, but I believe at other times they did accept that in a technical sense this one was not (though morally it was).
I guess an act can specify a yes/no vote must be made into law, but such an act could always be repealed?
As a leader I'm quite happy for parliament to formally trigger things, if that is what the law as currently constituted demands. If they chose not to do that, that is a political issue with a very clear solution.
Yes, Parliament cannot bind itself in legislation (part of the reason the supermajority clauses in the FTPA annoy me greatly). It could be "binding", as the AV one supposedly was, but Parliament could immediately repeal the legislation if they wanted to.
Given there isn't a distinction between non-binding and binding referendums, I don't see how one has to have a specified majority criteria, and the other doesn't. In fact, for the EU referendum there were amendments tabled to specify more strenuous majority rules, which were rejected by Parliament itself.
When people complain about older people who won't live with the consequences of a vote for as long being critical, surely there's only a few options people could hope for to address that. One, old people past a certain age should not be able to vote, two, they can vote but their votes should be worth less (a view I have seen on here), three, kids should be able to vote (whether 16 yr olds should count already or not is unclear - I don't think they should, but Scotland's vote already conceded on that score).
There are major problems with each of those of course. At what age should someone not be allowed to vote or have their vote cost less, would that change depending on the type of vote, mental state of the voter, at what age should kids be able to vote, and so on and so on.
None of which addresses the key solution to the problem, which is young people should bloody well turn out to vote. If the turnout of 18-24s is poor, there's little question that of anyone younger would be even worse unless you held it in schools or something, which is not a selling point.
I suppose compulsory voting is another potential solution, if you regard people voluntarily not voting as a problem in need of such a drastic solution (if turnout was really low and decreasing further, showing disengagement with the system - but our turnout has been increasing, if still down on historic levels), but personally I feel people should be allowed to choose not to vote.
By electing a majority Conservative government, with a manifesto commitment to hold a Brexit referendum, the electorate chose not to give their elected representatives the right to decide on this issue - they decided to reserve this issue for themselves to decide.
It isn't parliament that grants the people the right to decide, it is the people who choose to keep the decision to themselves.
Just imagine if more than six Tory MPs are charged and convicted over election expenses, then some people will argue Brexit should be reversed as there was never any mandate for the referendum.
I think there should be a court case held to determine the legality of the referendum in those circumstances with an appeal to the CJEU if necessary
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
I had sort of hoped, for its sake and ours, that our exit might spur them into genuinely addressing their problems, as a major flaw was when things got tough they occasionally acknowledged there were issues, then dropped it immediately and started blaming populism again when trouble died down. Any pronouncements they know the EU needs reform, from the EU, are false, as their actions show, the bureaucrats and supporting governments don't really believe it, they just feel they need to say it now and then. I had hoped our leaving might for their benefit lead to believing their own words on the need to address problems, but time will tell.
By electing a majority Conservative government, with a manifesto commitment to hold a Brexit referendum, the electorate chose not to give their elected representatives the right to decide on this issue - they decided to reserve this issue for themselves to decide.
It isn't parliament that grants the people the right to decide, it is the people who choose to keep the decision to themselves.
Just imagine if more than six Tory MPs are charged and convicted over election expenses, then some people will argue Brexit should be reversed as there was never any mandate for the referendum.
I think there should be a court case held to determine the legality of the referendum in those circumstances with an appeal to the CJEU if necessary
One reason May may opt for an early vote.
And if the bill ends up ping-ponging between Commons and Lords, they'll have to Vote Early, Vote Often
In fact, for the EU referendum there were amendments tabled to specify more strenuous majority rules, which were rejected by Parliament itself.
Rejected precisely because of the implication that they would bind Parliament to act on the result.
No it wouldn't, since they could simply repeal the Act.
It would be much harder to have flexibility, in a political sense, even if they could technically do it. As we are seeing now, from leavers and remainers, plenty of people do not like that referendums are not inherently binding in law and fall back on saying the people have spoken (I was one of them) and this should mean this and that, even though it would appear our system does not work that way (even if the government wins it would seem to be on the basis the government already had the power before the 2015 act, not that referendums are binding), and advocate ignoring the law based on what should be the law. If that's the reaction to an act not specifying binding (nor are the judges able or trying to repeal it), trying to actually repeal in parliament when it was specified to be binding would be very difficult indeed. I suppose if you had a referendum with such a provision, then immediately a GE at which a 'repeal' party won decisively, they'd claim a mandate to do so, but what a schizophrenic public we would have had then!
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
I had sort of hoped, for its sake and ours, that our exit might spur them into genuinely addressing their problems, as a major flaw was when things got tough they occasionally acknowledged there were issues, then dropped it immediately and started blaming populism again when trouble died down. Any pronouncements they know the EU needs reform, from the EU, are false, as their actions show, the bureaucrats and supporting governments don't really believe it, they just feel they need to say it now and then. I had hoped our leaving might for their benefit lead to believing their own words on the need to address problems, but time will tell.
We would end up with a better deal for us and the EU if the EU really did come under pressure from influential Remainers to reform itself. Alas the influential Remainers just carry on re-fighting the referendum.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
I had sort of hoped, for its sake and ours, that our exit might spur them into genuinely addressing their problems, as a major flaw was when things got tough they occasionally acknowledged there were issues, then dropped it immediately and started blaming populism again when trouble died down. Any pronouncements they know the EU needs reform, from the EU, are false, as their actions show, the bureaucrats and supporting governments don't really believe it, they just feel they need to say it now and then. I had hoped our leaving might for their benefit lead to believing their own words on the need to address problems, but time will tell.
The day after the referendum, I was talking to a German colleague, who was visiting me. A very anglophile German, it must be said.
He was depressed and shocked.
I said I hoped that it would help the EU reform. He agreed, cheering up, & said that the EU needed major reform. The UK's vote could be a reforming force for good, we agreed.
Alas, it seems the EU has concluded it's perfect and doesn't need reform. As have the Remainers.
I have not suggested screwing anyone. Indeed I have made quite clear on here that my bet not withstanding I do not expect my preferred option to be accepted at all. I misjudged the mood of the people regarding immigration at the time of the referendum and whatever I might want that is not compatible with the new reality.
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
Oh I hope so. Apart from being the option I wanted, I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi that that is where we will end up.
Nope I was simply hoping that the Norway option was accepted. Consistent with every other comment I have ever made on here including that I believed I would not achieve my aims and that I accepted that.
Like I say I suggest you get your facts right before getting into an argument.
When people complain about older people who won't live with the consequences of a vote for as long being critical, surely there's only a few options people could hope for to address that. One, old people past a certain age should not be able to vote, two, they can vote but their votes should be worth less (a view I have seen on here), three, kids should be able to vote (whether 16 yr olds should count already or not is unclear - I don't think they should, but Scotland's vote already conceded on that score).
There are major problems with each of those of course. At what age should someone not be allowed to vote or have their vote cost less, would that change depending on the type of vote, mental state of the voter, at what age should kids be able to vote, and so on and so on.
None of which addresses the key solution to the problem, which is young people should bloody well turn out to vote. If the turnout of 18-24s is poor, there's little question that of anyone younger would be even worse unless you held it in schools or something, which is not a selling point.
I suppose compulsory voting is another potential solution, if you regard people voluntarily not voting as a problem in need of such a drastic solution (if turnout was really low and decreasing further, showing disengagement with the system - but our turnout has been increasing, if still down on historic levels), but personally I feel people should be allowed to choose not to vote.
Good day all.
It's not a problem at all. Younger people will have plenty more opportunities than older people have to vote and campaign in the future.
In fact, for the EU referendum there were amendments tabled to specify more strenuous majority rules, which were rejected by Parliament itself.
Rejected precisely because of the implication that they would bind Parliament to act on the result.
No it wouldn't, since they could simply repeal the Act.
It would be much harder to have flexibility, in a political sense, even if they could technically do it. As we are seeing now, from leavers and remainers, plenty of people do not like that referendums are not inherently binding in law and fall back on saying the people have spoken (I was one of them) and this should mean this and that, even though it would appear our system does not work that way (even if the government wins it would seem to be on the basis the government already had the power before the 2015 act, not that referendums are binding), and advocate ignoring the law based on what should be the law. If that's the reaction to an act not specifying binding (nor are the judges able or trying to repeal it), trying to actually repeal in parliament when it was specified to be binding would be very difficult indeed. I suppose if you had a referendum with such a provision, then immediately a GE at which a 'repeal' party won decisively, they'd claim a mandate to do so, but what a schizophrenic public we would have had then!
williamglenn suggested that legally binding referendum require the win conditions to be stated in the legislation, while those that aren't binding do not:
"If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result."
I was arguing that since there is no difference legally between those that are binding and those that are not, that this was wrong.
Happy to be proven wrong by being pointed to the law which requires for the majority to be stated
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself.
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable.
But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post.
And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
I've been puzzled by the EU's apparent lack of introspection (well not too puzzled as I despaired of their ability or desire to reform following Dave's renegotiation). Now there's always going to be a public closing of the ranks following something as traumatic as Brexit and we are seeing that with "no prenegotiations". However, the bigger question is post Brexit ( and I mean say post March 2019 one assumes) where does the EU "go"? Do they really think all is hunky dory and especially now the troublesome Brits have gone, or do they really sit down and think "this is not ideal is it, what's the vision, and do we agree enough to do it?"
I come back always to consent. The EU has a lack of it for "ever closer union", and instead of addressing that directly seems to spend its life finding ways round that or overriding answers that it doesn't like when people are asked in referendums. I suppose "remoaning" is partly the native version of that instinct?
I have not suggested screwing anyone. Indeed I have made quite clear on here that my bet not withstanding I do not expect my preferred option to be accepted at all. I misjudged the mood of the people regarding immigration at the time of the referendum and whatever I might want that is not compatible with the new reality.
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
Oh I hope so. Apart from being the option I wanted, I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi that that is where we will end up.
Nope I was simply hoping that the Norway option was accepted. Consistent with every other comment I have ever made on here including that I believed I would not achieve my aims and that I accepted that.
Like I say I suggest you get your facts right before getting into an argument.
I was just teasing you. I know your views are fairly consistent, albeit minority or even elitist.
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
How much responsibility does Cameron bear for that, and how much confidence can anyone have that he wouldn't have fronted the same tin eared, minatory campaign whatever the deal?
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
He's actually voted in about 40% of all votes. That still puts him at 744/751, but there you go
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
He's actually voted in about 40% of all votes. That still puts him at 744/751, but there you go
OK, accept the amendment. Principle still applies!
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
He's actually voted in about 40% of all votes. That still puts him at 744/751, but there you go
OK, accept the amendment. Principle still applies!
Oh crap! Farage isn't the UKIP leader! Paul Nuttall is even better.. 57%.. but still 740th of 751!
Boris Johnson is prepared to take a short term tactical reverse in order to advance a long term strategy.
Hence he stood down from the Conservative leadership contest. Gives him a chance of being the next leader.
Hence he criticised Saudi and Iran for their proxy wars. This may turn out to be the best way to get them to change and the Prime Minister may adopt the same strategy in due course.
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
How much responsibility does Cameron bear for that, and how much confidence can anyone have that he wouldn't have fronted the same tin eared, minatory campaign whatever the deal?
These are fair points.
I think a referendum had become inevitable, and so I don't blame Cameron for promising & holding one.
Cameron clearly put no thought into the possible consequences of losing.
Presumably because he though his minatory campaign would be enough. I guess he always was a bully -- a polished and urbane one, but a bully nonetheless.
When people complain about older people who won't live with the consequences of a vote for as long being critical, surely there's only a few options people could hope for to address that. One, old people past a certain age should not be able to vote, two, they can vote but their votes should be worth less (a view I have seen on here), three, kids should be able to vote (whether 16 yr olds should count already or not is unclear - I don't think they should, but Scotland's vote already conceded on that score).
There are major problems with each of those of course. At what age should someone not be allowed to vote or have their vote cost less, would that change depending on the type of vote, mental state of the voter, at what age should kids be able to vote, and so on and so on.
None of which addresses the key solution to the problem, which is young people should bloody well turn out to vote. If the turnout of 18-24s is poor, there's little question that of anyone younger would be even worse unless you held it in schools or something, which is not a selling point.
I suppose compulsory voting is another potential solution, if you regard people voluntarily not voting as a problem in need of such a drastic solution (if turnout was really low and decreasing further, showing disengagement with the system - but our turnout has been increasing, if still down on historic levels), but personally I feel people should be allowed to choose not to vote.
Good day all.
It's not a problem at all. Younger people will have plenty more opportunities than older people have to vote and campaign in the future.
And besides the young haven't the experience to make a rational decision about which way to vote. The older the voter the greater the significance of their vote as it is based on a lifetime's worth of knowledge.
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
Very true; applies to all professions, of course. Before I retired I was involved with what is nowadays called “Continuing Professional Development “ and we required people produce evidence that, from their experiences they had “larned summat”.
It is generally regarded as “quite stressful”.
I know what you mean, the stress factor comes from forcing a bureaucracy on to what should be a normal activity - people are required to produce documentation to show what they have learned, why and how. When I did my PGCE it was full of such nonsense, I say nonsense because it was very easy to game the system (I used to write my "learning journal" in one evening just before it had to be handed in - it was a work of if not exactly fiction then certainly not compiled within the spirit if the Act.
Experiential learning should in any profession be a habit of mind, not an enforced extra activity. In my last proper salaried employment, I ensured that after every "event", for want of a better term, the whole team got together for at least one debrief session (sometimes a hot debrief was necessary as well) in which we discussed what had happened, why it had happened, what we should do differently or the same the next time around (then we went to the pub and/or curry house). Also as a manager I saw it as an essential part of my duties to inculcate such habit of mind in my team leaders and, indeed, all the people. Something happened? Take yourself around the cycle, no records necessary, but your Boss might ask you about it.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
But that is not the point he is making.
Millions of people under 18 have had their right to free movement within the EU taken away. They could not vote.
Who represents them?
a) Their parents represent them.
b) As a child, before we were in the EU, I went with the school to Belgium and Italy. There was freedom of movement for children and will continue to be.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
We have? It was UKIP voters who elected the UKIP MEPs and I really doubt they give a toss how many votes the MEPs turn up to in a parliament they do not recognise, as long as we left the EU. Money well spent.
If remoaners had seriously wanted to reform the EU they would have elected reformers and not a bunch of sycophants.
I have not suggested screwing anyone. Indeed I have made quite clear on here that my bet not withstanding I do not expect my preferred option to be accepted at all. I misjudged the mood of the people regarding immigration at the time of the referendum and whatever I might want that is not compatible with the new reality.
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
Oh I hope so. Apart from being the option I wanted, I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi that that is where we will end up.
Nope I was simply hoping that the Norway option was accepted. Consistent with every other comment I have ever made on here including that I believed I would not achieve my aims and that I accepted that.
Like I say I suggest you get your facts right before getting into an argument.
I was just teasing you. I know your views are fairly consistent, albeit minority or even elitist.
Except of course I don't seek to impose my solution on others against the democratic vote or to deny the legitimacy of their vote. It is the elite who seek to do that.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
But that is not the point he is making.
Millions of people under 18 have had their right to free movement within the EU taken away. They could not vote.
Who represents them?
a) Their parents represent them.
b) As a child, before we were in the EU, I went with the school to Belgium and Italy. There was freedom of movement for children and will continue to be.
Quite so, Mr. Evershed. The way some people talk on here one would think that it was impossible to travel abroad before 1973, let alone go and live in European countries. The Llama family did both. Hence the Portuguese Branch, which set up under the Salazar regime with not much more paperwork than would be required today.
When people complain about older people who won't live with the consequences of a vote for as long being critical, surely there's only a few options people could hope for to address that. One, old people past a certain age should not be able to vote, two, they can vote but their votes should be worth less (a view I have seen on here), three, kids should be able to vote (whether 16 yr olds should count already or not is unclear - I don't think they should, but Scotland's vote already conceded on that score).
There are major problems with each of those of course. At what age should someone not be allowed to vote or have their vote cost less, would that change depending on the type of vote, mental state of the voter, at what age should kids be able to vote, and so on and so on.
None of which addresses the key solution to the problem, which is young people should bloody well turn out to vote. If the turnout of 18-24s is poor, there's little question that of anyone younger would be even worse unless you held it in schools or something, which is not a selling point.
I suppose compulsory voting is another potential solution, if you regard people voluntarily not voting as a problem in need of such a drastic solution (if turnout was really low and decreasing further, showing disengagement with the system - but our turnout has been increasing, if still down on historic levels), but personally I feel people should be allowed to choose not to vote.
Good day all.
It's not a problem at all. Younger people will have plenty more opportunities than older people have to vote and campaign in the future.
And besides the young haven't the experience to make a rational decision about which way to vote. The older the voter the greater the significance of their vote as it is based on a lifetime's worth of knowledge.</blockquote
There was a lot of discussion about oldies votes swamping the votes of the young (after we voted the wrong way) and I have a lot of sympathy for this argument. After all, my vote as a Youngster to leave in 1974 was drowned out by many people who subsequently conveniently died after determining my future. Also many old people have questionable attitudes to foreigners, which unbalances their judgement and renders them ineligible to vote. My wife's uncle, for instance once tried to mass murder Germans by bombing the Turpitz when he was 19. (no racial awareness courses in the Fleet Air Arm then). Her other uncle on the other hand was well travelled in Europe, but refuses to go back to Holland, which he dismisses as "full of mud and people shooting at you" My own mother worked in a steelworks which made weapons to kill thousands of our European Partners. And due to political correctness they are still allowed to vote!
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
Very true; applies to all professions, of course. Before I retired I was involved with what is nowadays called “Continuing Professional Development “ and we required people produce evidence that, from their experiences they had “larned summat”.
It is generally regarded as “quite stressful”.
I know what you mean, the stress factor comes from forcing a bureaucracy on to what should be a normal activity - people are required to produce documentation to show what they have learned, why and how. When I did my PGCE it was full of such nonsense, I say nonsense because it was very easy to game the system (I used to write my "learning journal" in one evening just before it had to be handed in - it was a work of if not exactly fiction then certainly not compiled within the spirit if the Act.
Experiential learning should in any profession be a habit of mind, not an enforced extra activity. In my last proper salaried employment, I ensured that after every "event", for want of a better term, the whole team got together for at least one debrief session (sometimes a hot debrief was necessary as well) in which we discussed what had happened, why it had happened, what we should do differently or the same the next time around (then we went to the pub and/or curry house). Also as a manager I saw it as an essential part of my duties to inculcate such habit of mind in my team leaders and, indeed, all the people. Something happened? Take yourself around the cycle, no records necessary, but your Boss might ask you about it.
Absolutely agree. Very early in my career I learned to sit down every so often and review what had happened, what had gone right as well as what had gone wrong. Very often team/staff couldn’t see what I was on about. Which meant I hadn’t sold the idea well enough, of course.
And yes, it’s easy to game the system. A big problem is that when the ‘reviewing’ is done by outsiders it’s perceived as threatening, and when, as is is the case in my ex-profession, it’s done by the organisation which also runs the disciplinary process.
She is barking mad. Perhaps, rather more cynically, she will say what she needs to say to protect her own lifestyle. Either way, as a predictor of future outcomes she is probably slightly less reliable than my cat.
Housing is actually quite affordable across most of Britain, the problem is lack of high paying work there. Leicester has quite affordable decent quality housing, yet people here have the fourth lowest disposeable income in the UK. Blackburn, Hull and Nottingham are lower. This is where the JAMS are:
That's right. When I was working full time in London, I rent a one-bedroom flat above a shop on the noisy Holloway Road and paid £1300/month. Nice place as far as it went, but unaffordable when I left my job because of family commitments. So I've moved to a pleasant residential close in North Nottingham and rent a 3-room place with a garage for £500/month. On reflection, I was working 8 hours a day to afford to live worse.
In London, personally I think they should stuff the skyline and build, build, build, up, up, up. It's nice to get a good view when you glance out now and then. But being able to afford to live is critical.
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
The Leavers cannot have it both ways. Over the years we have, to their delight, elected an increasing large crew of laybouts and spongers....... the current Leader of UKIP hasn’t, I understand, attended more than about 5% of the time he ought to have, but has drawn 100% of his salary, let alone expenses ....... instead of people who were prepared to make the changes which many, if not all Remainers felt were needed.
We have? It was UKIP voters who elected the UKIP MEPs and I really doubt they give a toss how many votes the MEPs turn up to in a parliament they do not recognise, as long as we left the EU. Money well spent.
If remoaners had seriously wanted to reform the EU they would have elected reformers and not a bunch of sycophants.
We elected UKIP to wreck the EU. Which they have. They never pretended to want to reform it, unlike the other parties. The other parties pretended to want to reform it, which they didn't. UKIP did what they said they would. I can't believe any UKIP voter is disappointed.
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
I was once told by someone who should know that the head of a primary school where I used to live was on over 90k and her deputy was on circa 65k.
I think most people would say they are decent sums of money.
I want to say so much more about those two, but I am trying to move on from the stress and anger those arseholes caused.
Just a note of caution: whilst I agree with the consensus on Abbott's comment, remember just how wild 2016 was politically. Forecasts can frequently be wrong.
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
How much responsibility does Cameron bear for that, and how much confidence can anyone have that he wouldn't have fronted the same tin eared, minatory campaign whatever the deal?
These are fair points.
I think a referendum had become inevitable, and so I don't blame Cameron for promising & holding one.
Cameron clearly put no thought into the possible consequences of losing.
Presumably because he though his minatory campaign would be enough. I guess he always was a bully -- a polished and urbane one, but a bully nonetheless.
It's daft to blame Cameron, just as it's daft to blame Corby's lack of enthusiasm. The EU is a hopeless cause with the British voter. In 1974 we voted 33% to leave. In 2016 we voted 52% to leave. The writing was on the wall.
Nicholas Boyle, emeritus professor of German at Cambridge University, has pointed out that only 28% of the population of this country voted to leave the EU. “Should 28% be entitled to compel 72% to do what they want?” he asks. That, he says, is the real constitutional issue.
“The 17 million [Leave voters] represented no one other than themselves. The members of the House of Commons represent all 64 million of us, whether voters or not.” He adds that if it is true that 70% of MPs do not wish to leave the European Union, then they “have every right to feel they more truly represent the views and interests of the country”.
Pointless argument. There is an electorate which comprises a subgroup of the population. That is broadly accepted (and there is a prpceedure for changing the definition of you agree).
Every member of the electorate had the right to vote. If an individual chose not to exercise that right then they can't reasonably complain that they had no input into the outcome.
Well quite. There are remoAner arguments I have sympathy with, particularly with hardcore leavers and some former remain allies pretending if we don't get hardest Brexit that is basically ignoring the referendum, but suddenly deciding absolute majority is needed, not even a majority of eligible voters who choose to vote? Come off it.
I like that it specifies a professor pointed it out. Such stunning insight, professor.
If they want to respond seriously, someone could say it's hardly in the interests of the 64million to ignore the vote given the chaos that would cause, the kids can always campaign to rejoin the eu.
If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result.
I don't think any referendum in the UK can be binding.
The AV referendum was binding, in the sense that the 2011 Act contained clause 8 requiring, in the event of a majority yes vote, the minister to implement the specific orders to change the voting system as set out in the act.
She is barking mad. Perhaps, rather more cynically, she will say what she needs to say to protect her own lifestyle. Either way, as a predictor of future outcomes she is probably slightly less reliable than my cat.
Perhaps she is in on the secret of Corbyn's departure date?
I am puzzled the Remainers have not turned any of their ire on the EU itself. After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one. A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable. But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post. And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Excellent points. The Remainers are not even trying to get the EU to reform itself. Instead the talk is abour "more EU" not a "new EU". All of which points to why we are more likely to head for a WTO type of Brexit because the EU is fundamentally incapable of taking sound rational decisions. It is simply unreformable.
I had sort of hoped, for its sake and ours, that our exit might spur them into genuinely addressing their problems, as a major flaw was when things got tough they occasionally acknowledged there were issues, then dropped it immediately and started blaming populism again when trouble died down. Any pronouncements they know the EU needs reform, from the EU, are false, as their actions show, the bureaucrats and supporting governments don't really believe it, they just feel they need to say it now and then. I had hoped our leaving might for their benefit lead to believing their own words on the need to address problems, but time will tell.
My guess is that the EU is hoping that Brexit will show how important the EU is. The case for reform will only become unanswerable if the UK leaves and prospers.
"The war for Labour’s soul goes on. As the old leftists liked to say, the struggle takes many forms. The one that counts at the moment is at the grassroots. Rather against expectations, the moderates are prevailing."
"The war for Labour’s soul goes on. As the old leftists liked to say, the struggle takes many forms. The one that counts at the moment is at the grassroots. Rather against expectations, the moderates are prevailing."
Yep - any vote which involves people turning up to meetings is a vote that is won by the moderate part of the party, the people that have been Labour members for years and who voted for Owen Smith in September.
Burnham on Sky - seems like he might actually be listening to Labour voters in the north of England.
Unlike the party leadership.
If only he'd put himself up for Leader....
Oh.
He's not speaking to the Party. He's lost interest in that. He's speaking to the voters of Manchester, who he needs to elect him as mayor.
But Manchester = Labour. One of their few remaining one-party states they possess after the fall of Scotland (well, apart from Manchester's single LibDem councillor!).
Just a note of caution: whilst I agree with the consensus on Abbott's comment, remember just how wild 2016 was politically. Forecasts can frequently be wrong.
2017 is going to be a straight vanilla, boring-as-all-Hell year.
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
I was once told by someone who should know that the head of a primary school where I used to live was on over 90k and her deputy was on circa 65k.
I think most people would say they are decent sums of money.
I want to say so much more about those two, but I am trying to move on from the stress and anger those arseholes caused.
Burnham on Sky - seems like he might actually be listening to Labour voters in the north of England.
Unlike the party leadership.
If only he'd put himself up for Leader....
Oh.
He's not speaking to the Party. He's lost interest in that. He's speaking to the voters of Manchester, who he needs to elect him as mayor.
But Manchester = Labour. One of their few remaining one-party states they possess after the fall of Scotland (well, apart from Manchester's single LibDem councillor!).
This is Mayor of Greater Manchester, not just Manchester and their 95 out of 96 councillors.
Just a note of caution: whilst I agree with the consensus on Abbott's comment, remember just how wild 2016 was politically. Forecasts can frequently be wrong.
2017 is going to be a straight vanilla, boring-as-all-Hell year.
Surely, there is nothing left in the upsets silo?
President Le Pen and America pulling out of NATO and Russian aggression further into Europe might be 'fun'
Just a note of caution: whilst I agree with the consensus on Abbott's comment, remember just how wild 2016 was politically. Forecasts can frequently be wrong.
2017 is going to be a straight vanilla, boring-as-all-Hell year.
Surely, there is nothing left in the upsets silo?
President Le Pen and America pulling out of NATO and Russian aggression further into Europe might be 'fun'
...and collapse of Italian banking system and subsequent leaving of Euro.
as predicted by many of us on PB, the Corbyn surge clicktivists just don't turn up to the meetings when crucial posts are elected.
And therein lies Labour's very faint hope. The vast majority of the Cobynista clickers are not actually that engaged in the political process. Their interest can wane just as quickly as it waxed. It will be interesting to see, for example, what membership renewal figures are like over the coming year or so given that Jeremy has not proved to be the messiah so many were led to expect. When the unions finally get round to deciding that Corbyn should go (2018), the leadership election rules can be changed to ensure that clickers have far less influence over the result.
Just a note of caution: whilst I agree with the consensus on Abbott's comment, remember just how wild 2016 was politically. Forecasts can frequently be wrong.
2017 is going to be a straight vanilla, boring-as-all-Hell year.
Surely, there is nothing left in the upsets silo?
President Le Pen and America pulling out of NATO and Russian aggression further into Europe might be 'fun'
Would they be upsets though; surely they’re 'known unknowns' by now?
Burnham on Sky - seems like he might actually be listening to Labour voters in the north of England.
Unlike the party leadership.
If only he'd put himself up for Leader....
Oh.
He's not speaking to the Party. He's lost interest in that. He's speaking to the voters of Manchester, who he needs to elect him as mayor.
Indeed, his one potential weakness (other than coming from Liverpool) is that he is seen as a political insider and puppet of the national party. He'll be stressing his independence from now on, like Sadiq.
I am sure he will win - although mayoral contests don't always go along normal political lines; Bedford has had a LibDem mayor elected and re-elected, despite never having that much strength in the area.
Comments
The latter, leaving in name only, is a matter of opinion and already attached to anything short of erecting a fence in the channel, so an option presented as such would lead to some taking their votes elsewhere but not necessarily large numbers, depending on how reasonable the accusation was.
Al-QaidaAl-Nusra against Russia/Assad.The older, wiser people who did vote.
There are always people too young, or disbarred from voting for reasons of nationality, who will be affected by the consequences of any decision .There are always people who don't vote, presumably because they don't care enough, who will be affected by the consequences of any decision.
The Professor's opinions seems throughly anti-democratic, and so no wonder he is getting short shrift.
Of course, one of the huge -- absolutely huge -- beneficiaries of the EU has been Cambridge University.
How has the University helped to spread the wealth around Cambridge?
The wards in Cambridge that were heavily for Brexit were Abbey & Arbury & Kings Hedges. They are the Labour wards. These people have seen no benefit from the huge amounts of money that the University has received. Rather, their life has got worse as the influx of people has caused rents/housing in the City to soar.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1365441/#Comment_1365441
But I am not the one suggesting the vote was somehow invalid.
I suggest you get your facts right before entering into an argument.
None of these will be affected by Brexit. We already have such schemes in places with Canada and Australia.
There are plenty of older people to whom their right to free movement within the EU was a far bigger deal than the youth, because they owned property and retired there.
Yet a clear majority voted to Leave.
Kids dont get a say. That's the way of the world.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1365441/#Comment_1365441
What I meant to say was:
While I’m not a teacher, many of my family are or have been, and currently both my elder grandchildren are. One of them is now a supply teacher and posted on her Facebook page the other day that that meant, since she’s covering a long term sick situation that she can really relate to and advise her students, more than if she had more responsibility.
She teaches what I call 5th & 6th Formers.
I'd have more respect for him if he were prepared to argue openly and honestly against democracy, as many great thinkers have done in the past. But, that would take moral courage.
Anyway, I am taking a choir out from school today, and have to dash. Have a good week everyone!
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
I guess an act can specify a yes/no vote must be made into law, but such an act could always be repealed?
As a leaver I'm quite happy for parliament to formally trigger things, if that is what the law as currently constituted demands, as it also seems quite appropriate. If they chose not to do that, that is a political issue with a very clear solution.
You can get 11/1 ish on the Spanners winning today.
It isn't parliament that grants the people the right to decide, it is the people who choose to keep the decision to themselves.
https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/807727779785670656
After all, Cameron needed a deal he could sell. He didn't get one.
A slightly better deal may have made all the difference in a close referendum. I don't in all honesty think the UK was asking for anything very unreasonable.
But, still Junker and Tusk and Co, despite having misjudged the situation as much (maybe more) than Cameron, are still in post.
And not a fleck of criticism has been directed at them by the Remainers.
Perhaps he should tell General Ripper about Trump's preversions...
I think there should be a court case held to determine the legality of the referendum in those circumstances with an appeal to the CJEU if necessary
It is generally regarded as “quite stressful”.
Given there isn't a distinction between non-binding and binding referendums, I don't see how one has to have a specified majority criteria, and the other doesn't. In fact, for the EU referendum there were amendments tabled to specify more strenuous majority rules, which were rejected by Parliament itself.
There are major problems with each of those of course. At what age should someone not be allowed to vote or have their vote cost less, would that change depending on the type of vote, mental state of the voter, at what age should kids be able to vote, and so on and so on.
None of which addresses the key solution to the problem, which is young people should bloody well turn out to vote. If the turnout of 18-24s is poor, there's little question that of anyone younger would be even worse unless you held it in schools or something, which is not a selling point.
I suppose compulsory voting is another potential solution, if you regard people voluntarily not voting as a problem in need of such a drastic solution (if turnout was really low and decreasing further, showing disengagement with the system - but our turnout has been increasing, if still down on historic levels), but personally I feel people should be allowed to choose not to vote.
Good day all.
He was depressed and shocked.
I said I hoped that it would help the EU reform. He agreed, cheering up, & said that the EU needed major reform. The UK's vote could be a reforming force for good, we agreed.
Alas, it seems the EU has concluded it's perfect and doesn't need reform. As have the Remainers.
Like I say I suggest you get your facts right before getting into an argument.
"If the referendum had been binding the Act would need to have specified what the threshold was to make such a momentous decision to leave was. A 2/3 majority of the electorate wouldn't be unreasonable in the circumstances. As the referendum was advisory the question didn't arise, but it's now up to parliament to interpret the result."
I was arguing that since there is no difference legally between those that are binding and those that are not, that this was wrong.
Happy to be proven wrong by being pointed to the law which requires for the majority to be stated
Unlike the party leadership.
I come back always to consent. The EU has a lack of it for "ever closer union", and instead of addressing that directly seems to spend its life finding ways round that or overriding answers that it doesn't like when people are asked in referendums. I suppose "remoaning" is partly the native version of that instinct?
Hence he stood down from the Conservative leadership contest. Gives him a chance of being the next leader.
Hence he criticised Saudi and Iran for their proxy wars. This may turn out to be the best way to get them to change and the Prime Minister may adopt the same strategy in due course.
I think a referendum had become inevitable, and so I don't blame Cameron for promising & holding one.
Cameron clearly put no thought into the possible consequences of losing.
Presumably because he though his minatory campaign would be enough. I guess he always was a bully -- a polished and urbane one, but a bully nonetheless.
Experiential learning should in any profession be a habit of mind, not an enforced extra activity. In my last proper salaried employment, I ensured that after every "event", for want of a better term, the whole team got together for at least one debrief session (sometimes a hot debrief was necessary as well) in which we discussed what had happened, why it had happened, what we should do differently or the same the next time around (then we went to the pub and/or curry house). Also as a manager I saw it as an essential part of my duties to inculcate such habit of mind in my team leaders and, indeed, all the people. Something happened? Take yourself around the cycle, no records necessary, but your Boss might ask you about it.
b) As a child, before we were in the EU, I went with the school to Belgium and Italy. There was freedom of movement for children and will continue to be.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/81620/diane-abbott-labour-will-be-neck-and-neck-tories
If remoaners had seriously wanted to reform the EU they would have elected reformers and not a bunch of sycophants.
Very often team/staff couldn’t see what I was on about. Which meant I hadn’t sold the idea well enough, of course.
And yes, it’s easy to game the system. A big problem is that when the ‘reviewing’ is done by outsiders it’s perceived as threatening, and when, as is is the case in my ex-profession, it’s done by the organisation which also runs the disciplinary process.
In London, personally I think they should stuff the skyline and build, build, build, up, up, up. It's nice to get a good view when you glance out now and then. But being able to afford to live is critical.
Oh.
I think most people would say they are decent sums of money.
I want to say so much more about those two, but I am trying to move on from the stress and anger those arseholes caused.
"The war for Labour’s soul goes on. As the old leftists liked to say, the struggle takes many forms. The one that counts at the moment is at the grassroots. Rather against expectations, the moderates are prevailing."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/labour-war-jeremy-corbyn-opponents-control-constituencies
Stranger things have happened.
Surely, there is nothing left in the upsets silo?
I am sure he will win - although mayoral contests don't always go along normal political lines; Bedford has had a LibDem mayor elected and re-elected, despite never having that much strength in the area.