However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
And under our system it would be perfectly constitutional for MPs to block Brexit. That's the rules of the democracy we have and which Leave insisted should be made more powerful.
I 've just put a few quid on Corbyn to go in 2017 as the odds were pretty good. Although I agree with the analysis that he is secure with membership, the Party's weak performance to date on BREXIT, plus potential defeat in local elections in 2017 and a possible snap Gen election (not that I think it is likely) means 2017 is a tough year for him, he will have done 2 years in post next Summer and may decide its time to call it a day......not bad odds so worth a punt.
In the unlikely event of Len McCluskey losing the Unite leadership election next year, you will win your bet. Ditto if there is a general election. Otherwise, Corbyn goes in 2018.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
And under our system it would be perfectly constitutional for MPs to block Brexit. That's the rules of the democracy we have and which Leave insisted should be made more powerful.
It would be constitutional but not democratic and it won't happen. The person from Labour who I have heard speak most sense about this was Stephen Kinnock who acknowledged that the decision had been made and the priority was to ensure that Brexit was on the best possible terms. He said he wanted to hold the government to account but not to ransom.
That is exactly the right line. The government's studied vagueness on Brexit is not helpful. There are a myriad of decisions to be taken for Brexit and careful consideration needs to be given to our priorities in the negotiations to come. It is absolutely right that the Opposition should test and challenge the priorities chosen. In fact it is an essential part of the process. May is wrong to say that she needs to keep her cards close to her chest. What she needs to do is develop a robust position which the country can get behind. So far I see little sign of it.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
Hold off the jibes and sighs over how much poorer Brexit Britain will be. Forget about the mendacity and slipperiness of Boris ’n’ Nigel. In the six months since the referendum these have been the clever arguments to make, the ones that fill the sophisticated newspapers and BBC discussions. But none answer the far simpler and much harder question: then what? What happens when 17 million people get the feeling they’ve been cheated?
That will be the most profound question in British politics, not just in 2017 but for many years to come. As the broken promises of Brexit pile up one on top of the other, so that they are visible from Sunderland, from Great Yarmouth, from Newport, what will the leave voters do then?
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What of any significance did she negotiate whilst she was there?
P'haps.
Her test will come when the Supreme Court rules in January. I expect that she is ready to respond to the judgement and act on that judgement immediately with some force and leadership. This will be a big moment for her and the Country
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that.
The big problem she has is that, up to now, Brexit is a blank slate onto which any hopes, dreams and fantasies could be projected. At some point the alternate universes will collapse and it'll be apparent that we're facing years of bureaucratic slog, dealing with truculent arseholes to end up slightly poorer but with less foreigners.
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
And under our system it would be perfectly constitutional for MPs to block Brexit. That's the rules of the democracy we have and which Leave insisted should be made more powerful.
It would be constitutional but not democratic and it won't happen. The person from Labour who I have heard speak most sense about this was Stephen Kinnock who acknowledged that the decision had been made and the priority was to ensure that Brexit was on the best possible terms. He said he wanted to hold the government to account but not to ransom.
That is exactly the right line. The government's studied vagueness on Brexit is not helpful. There are a myriad of decisions to be taken for Brexit and careful consideration needs to be given to our priorities in the negotiations to come. It is absolutely right that the Opposition should test and challenge the priorities chosen. In fact it is an essential part of the process. May is wrong to say that she needs to keep her cards close to her chest. What she needs to do is develop a robust position which the country can get behind. So far I see little sign of it.
Yep, I agree with all of that. I was just pointing out that our democracy allows MPs to ignore the result of a non-binding referendum. May has no interest in anything other than being PM. She is Gordon Brown in a skirt.
At least with Lab now we are hearing from and seeing more competent types (everything being relative) and we get Starmer and Lewis, etc instead of the terrible trio.
Must be super frustrating for Lab supporters as Corbyn can be ignored yet he is always there.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
That report was written after thirteen years of the program. Yes it is a problem, but Sure Start clearly wasn't the silver bullet.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
That report was written after thirteen years of the program. Yes it is a problem, but Sure Start clearly wasn't the silver bullet.
It was a recognition - the first - that there is an issue. It could and should have been built on.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
The scientists missed out "future guests on Jeremy Kyle"
This seems to me to smack of the over-authoritarian declarations by Chief Constables from time to time. I recall one within the last decade saying that they could start dealing with them in the early years at primary school, and it wasn't James Anderton.
They can study it as a statistical phenomenon, but *if* and when anyone wants to start to police children on the basis of things they may do in x years time, then we have a problem. Ditto "race", "class" etc.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
That report was written after thirteen years of the program. Yes it is a problem, but Sure Start clearly wasn't the silver bullet.
I knew two Surestart teaching assistants, both took it seriously and were very dismissive of it as nothing more than glorified play group child minding. Few workers were interested in doing what it was meant to do.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
That report was written after thirteen years of the program. Yes it is a problem, but Sure Start clearly wasn't the silver bullet.
It was a recognition - the first - that there is an issue. It could and should have been built on.
The key quotes in the article are:
"One major problem, he says, was that ministers ignored calls for a properly controlled evaluation of the programme - in which children would have been randomly assigned to a Sure Start or a non-Sure Start group.
He accuses Labour of deliberately ignoring the possibility the programme might not work:
"Academics were I think pretty unanimous in their view that a randomised controlled trial was the way ahead. But government vetoed that - I guess probably because evidence that it was less than perfect would be unwelcome."
The reluctance to have evidence based policy in this country is a painful weakness on all sides of the political divide. There needs to be far more emphasis on what works and what doesn't. Common sense and such research as we have does indeed suggest early intervention is key but what sort of intervention actually works? I am not sure we are much further forward with that.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
We'll never know now. Clearly, though, early intervention is absolutely key. We can't - shouldn't - take kids away from their parents, so what do we do to tackle a known problem that entrenches misery and costs the country tens of billions of pounds?
That report was written after thirteen years of the program. Yes it is a problem, but Sure Start clearly wasn't the silver bullet.
It was a recognition - the first - that there is an issue. It could and should have been built on.
We has some involvement with our local Sure Start centre when the little 'un was born. Great staff with good facilities, and we met other parents (especially other first-timers) who we would chat with and swap tips and advice; a bit like an extension of our NCT group. I still chat to the workers regularly.
However: the majority of the people there were, like us, middle class. One day I talked to one mother who is a software team leader, then immediately afterwards another who is involved in the planetary sciences. Whilst the group was useful for us, if you want to improve outcomes it wasn't spending focused on where it is most needed.
As an example, we were given a leaflet about reading to your children, and how free books were available from the library or SureStart centre. A great idea, but books - and now childrens' books - are not exactly uncommon in our house.
I can see how SureStart will help those who will have trouble raising children. Ours at least seemed to not be reaching such people (though I only got to see one years' worth of parents, and that might be unfair).
I would say our NCT group (which we paid for ourselves) was much more useful, and gave us contacts, a support group and friends that have lasted for nearly three years.
On topic, the value on that list is Farron. Once Article 50 is served, he is leading the LibDems to be the Party of Rejoin, a blind alley of the Euro and European Army - a problem not just in the South-west. He already ha trouble with a third of his MPs on how to play post-Referendum politics. And this is the LibDems we're talking here - somebody will be agitating for the top job and sharpening the knives before too long.
Plu he is a devout man - there is a risk that one day God will tell him to do something more worthwhile with his life.
On topic, the value on that list is Farron. Once Article 50 is served, he is leading the LibDems to be the Party of Rejoin, a blind alley of the Euro and European Army - a problem not just in the South-west. He already ha trouble with a third of his MPs on how to play post-Referendum politics. And this is the LibDems we're talking here - somebody will be agitating for the top job and sharpening the knives before too long.
Plu he is a devout man - there is a risk that one day God will tell him to do something more worthwhile with his life.
Farron's just delivered them an important by-election victory.
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
It does seem to have been a particularly heavy crop this year.
"Seem" is the right word. It's merely an effect of 50 years of mass media - we feel we know many more people now, so the proportion of familiar faces in the reaper's annual cull is higher.
I'm looking forward to watching the Obit Show on Channel 4, currently in pre-production by Menthorn Media. The twist is it's presented by a terminally ill celebrity. After they've departed they're the lead item on next week's show.
BBC breakfast can't interview ASLEF guy because his train is delayed.
I think Southern Rail: The Board Game would be a runner. Unlike their trains.
When the motor industry was vibrant but strike-prone in the 80s, I designed a board game for Games & Puzzles magazine (called "Strike!") with four to eight players - an even number of management and unions - with asymmetric objectives: the companies had to compete and make profits, the unions had to maximise wages actually received (which they wouldn't get when striking). A generous compsny manager would be undercut by his rivals, a stingy one would be hit by strikes. An aggressive union leader would find his company undermined, a tame one would find he has being taken advantage of. It was a reasonably unbiased attempt to show the problems of both sides and quite fun:
I tried to get the Morning Star to provide a striking cover image - they originally agreed, but backed out later, saying that on reflection it wasn't right to play a game on a serious issue.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that.
Mr. Floater, to be fair, the Carthaginian side was outnumbered, especially with cavalry, and on a plain, having more numbers is rather handy. In a tighter spot (forests) or with defensive terrain (hills) you can try to use that to your advantage.
Hannibal used rivers/lakes to his advantage in numerous battles. Not an option at Zama.
BBC breakfast can't interview ASLEF guy because his train is delayed.
I think Southern Rail: The Board Game would be a runner. Unlike their trains.
When the motor industry was vibrant but strike-prone in the 80s, I designed a board game for Games & Puzzles magazine (called "Strike!") with four to eight players - an even number of management and unions - with asymmetric objectives: the companies had to compete and make profits, the unions had to maximise wages actually received (which they wouldn't get when striking). A generous compsny manager would be undercut by his rivals, a stingy one would be hit by strikes. An aggressive union leader would find his company undermined, a tame one would find he has being taken advantage of. It was a reasonably unbiased attempt to show the problems of both sides and quite fun:
I tried to get the Morning Star to provide a striking cover image - they originally agreed, but backed out later, saying that on reflection it wasn't right to play a game on a serious issue.
Sounds like something where the PESI formula plus the law of diminishing returns would play a part
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Mr. Floater, to be fair, the Carthaginian side was outnumbered, especially with cavalry, and on a plain, having more numbers is rather handy. In a tighter spot (forests) or with defensive terrain (hills) you can try to use that to your advantage.
Hannibal used rivers/lakes to his advantage in numerous battles. Not an option at Zama.
Nonsense. Caesar was outnumbered at Dyrrhachium, and still inflicted more casualties on the Optimates.
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
Yes this would go down like a lead balloon in Midlands manufacturing areas, such a policy would only be viable once cheap and mass produced electric cars were available
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
May has made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access, hard Brexit as UKIP wants require a points system and no single market access at all and no budget contributions
On the rail strikes topic, Didn't ScotRail and the unions come to an agreement on a very similar dispute? If so why can't the terms of that agreement be the basis of a resolution to this strike?
I think the unions have said they'd accept the ScotRail solution, so why not GTR?
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
May has made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access, hard Brexit as UKIP wants require a points system and no single market access at all and no budget contributions
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne it probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
It is not the 'hard-core nutters' that May needs to keep on side if she wants to win her own GE mandate. Its the loyal moderates like me she is losing and should be concerned about if she wants to reach out across the country and win a majority.
The 'loyal moderates' you are talking about are pretty happy with May overall which is why she has a far bigger poll lead now than Cameron did when he left
Worth remembering Gordon Brown's initial honeymoon poll ratings when he became PM, what ever happened to those Labour 'loyal moderates'? Lets compare Theresa May's record to Cameron when she has entrenched her position in No10 via a GE.
Brown faced Cameron not Corbyn unlike Cameron and May
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
May has made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access, hard Brexit as UKIP wants require a points system and no single market access at all and no budget contributions
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
The local elections two years into a parliament are often where the opposition party holds its biggest lead:
1981 Opp +3 - Gov wins next general election 1985 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election 1989 Opp +6 - Gov wins next general election 1994 Opp +12- Opp wins next general election 1999 Gov +2 - Gov wins next general election 2003 Opp +5 - Gov wins next general election 2007 Opp +13 - Opp wins next general election 2012 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election
The Opposition also had a lead of over 10% in 1976 and went on to win the following general election.
Still six months away but things are not looking good for Labour at present. Though a similar scenario appeared likely in the 2016 local elections only for the government to run into difficulties through Osborne's failed Budget and the IDS resignation.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Hamilton lost.
I believe his ultimate aim was a Broadway musical about his life.
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
May has made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access, hard Brexit as UKIP wants require a points system and no single market access at all and no budget contributions
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
Her team ruled out a points system months ago
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Right now the only electric car that doesn't resemble a milk float in terms of performance is @rcs1000's GBP 60k Tesla Model S. That company's new Model 3 is expected in 2018, at around GBP 40k - but still double the price of an equivalent petrol-powered runaround.
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
You don't seem to understand the US electoral system. I was just stating facts.
I do. These are the facts. Unfaithful electors are people who betray their office. In most States they can be prosecuted for it and quite right too.
"The Electoral College mechanism and the peculiar phenomenon of faithless electors provided for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent a scenario of tyranny of the majority, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for authoritarianism, dictatorship, kleptocracy, or other system of oppressive government.[3] American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued of the fear regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Hamilton lost.
I believe his ultimate aim was a Broadway musical about his life.
An excuse to post the best joke about the Pence incident.
Of course one way to stop using petrol fuelled cars is to mandate that all new cars be fully flex-fuel capable. As is the case in Brazil, where all cars sold can accept petrol or ethanol or methanol or any combination thereof (this requires a methanol resistant fuel system and an exhaust sniffer that can dynamically alter the engine timing). All we then need do is to import mahoosive quantities of industrial alcohol instead of mahoosive quantities of fossil fuel.
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Right now the only electric car that doesn't resemble a milk float in terms of performance is @rcs1000's GBP 60k Tesla Model S. That company's new Model 3 is expected in 2018, at around GBP 40k - but still double the price of an equivalent petrol-powered runaround.
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
Doesn't this discussion expose our parochialism? Norway has already voted to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2025, Germany by 2030.
Mr. Glenn, the Germans are daft sods in hoc to the Greens and prone to knee-jerk nonsense (cf banning all nuclear power stations after Japan had an earthquake and tsunami, or Merkel deciding sending a siren call to millions of entirely unchecked migrants would be a good idea).
Developing better engine tech is important but just stopping all petrol engines (indeed, banning them) would cost a fortune as well as infuriating those with perfectly good cars deemed to be illegal.
Farron not going down well in the West Country? Well there are 5 by elections this week, 4 with Lib Dem candidates, 3 in Devon and 1 in Somerset where they should be in with a chance. Lets see what happens.
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Right now the only electric car that doesn't resemble a milk float in terms of performance is @rcs1000's GBP 60k Tesla Model S. That company's new Model 3 is expected in 2018, at around GBP 40k - but still double the price of an equivalent petrol-powered runaround.
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
It's clear though that radical action is needed to make the automotive industry invest seriously in different technology. Corbyn's proposal is for 2026, which is I accept reasonably near horizon in this context but far enough away to make some proper investment.
In my view it's a reasonable policy, albeit needing tweaking. We have to shift from our reliance on dead creatures.
The local elections two years into a parliament are often where the opposition party holds its biggest lead:
1981 Opp +3 - Gov wins next general election 1985 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election 1989 Opp +6 - Gov wins next general election 1994 Opp +12- Opp wins next general election 1999 Gov +2 - Gov wins next general election 2003 Opp +5 - Gov wins next general election 2007 Opp +13 - Opp wins next general election 2012 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election
The Opposition also had a lead of over 10% in 1976 and went on to win the following general election.
Still six months away but things are not looking good for Labour at present. Though a similar scenario appeared likely in the 2016 local elections only for the government to run into difficulties through Osborne's failed Budget and the IDS resignation.
The problem with that is that local elections next year are relatively few , Scotland , Wales and English counties plus a couple of Unitaries . In England it is the Conservatives defending the majority of seats with UKIP going to lose a substantial number of those they are defending . 2018 will also have relatively few seats up except in London so 2019 will be the big round of local elections .
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Right now the only electric car that doesn't resemble a milk float in terms of performance is @rcs1000's GBP 60k Tesla Model S. That company's new Model 3 is expected in 2018, at around GBP 40k - but still double the price of an equivalent petrol-powered runaround.
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
Doesn't this discussion expose our parochialism? Norway has already voted to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2025, Germany by 2030.
Do you really think Porsche and Mercedes are going to stop selling their sports cars with engines in 13 years' time - really? Porsche sales are already hurting this year, as they introduced turbocharged engines to their mainstream sports cars for the first time - everyone still wants the old '14 and '15 models, which aren't depreciating due to the demand.
Corbyn considering a ban on petrol driven cars according to the BBC
This was mentioned over the weekend.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that. </p>
But why wouldn't these green cars be built in Britain in the same factories producing current models?
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
Right now the only electric car that doesn't resemble a milk float in terms of performance is @rcs1000's GBP 60k Tesla Model S. That company's new Model 3 is expected in 2018, at around GBP 40k - but still double the price of an equivalent petrol-powered runaround.
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
By taxing electric cars, obviously. (BTW, is that 40bn figure right? Sounds about an order of magnitude out to me?)
But no, banning the internal combustion engine isn't the right solution, any more than banning horses would have been the right solution to the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. Incentivising the production and use of electric cars and investing in the infrastructure to support them would be a better way to go.
BBC breakfast can't interview ASLEF guy because his train is delayed.
I think Southern Rail: The Board Game would be a runner. Unlike their trains.
When the motor industry was vibrant but strike-prone in the 80s, I designed a board game for Games & Puzzles magazine (called "Strike!") with four to eight players - an even number of management and unions - with asymmetric objectives: the companies had to compete and make profits, the unions had to maximise wages actually received (which they wouldn't get when striking). A generous compsny manager would be undercut by his rivals, a stingy one would be hit by strikes. An aggressive union leader would find his company undermined, a tame one would find he has being taken advantage of. It was a reasonably unbiased attempt to show the problems of both sides and quite fun:
I tried to get the Morning Star to provide a striking cover image - they originally agreed, but backed out later, saying that on reflection it wasn't right to play a game on a serious issue.
The power of a strike is in threatening to use it to change other people's behaviour. For the threat to be real you have to be serious about using it but if you do have to use it, it shows your threat failed to achieve its objective
The same as prison and crime prevention. Each prison sentence is an indication of failure. Prison only works as long as people don't go there. That's the paradox.
The winning state margins in the US Presidential election:
CA 4,244,280 (still incomplete) NY 1,702792 IL 944,714 MA 904,303
by comparison Trump's largest margin of victory was 807,179 in Texas.
I remember MaxPB putting up a list of where Clinton had campaigned - it was dominated by safe Democrat states.
Trump campaigned to win the EC, Hillary the popular vote, they both won but only one will become president
Except she didn't campaign to win the popular vote. She didn't spend any time in California, AFAIK? She campaigned to win the Electoral College but simply campaigned badly.
Unfortunately the 'slightly poorer' will end up being borne disproportionately by those who were the most slavish devotees of Brexit. They may not be happy when they realise they've bought a pup.
Yeah, but what are they going to do about it? Vote LibDem? Ha-ha.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
May has made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access, hard Brexit as UKIP wants require a points system and no single market access at all and no budget contributions
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
Her team ruled out a points system months ago
Where has May "made quite clear she will limit free movement but only by a job offer and will use continued budget contributions to get some single market access"?
Her team made quite clear in the Mail there would be a job offer system not a points system and both Davies and Hammond have made quite clear in their statements they are open to continued budget contributions
The winning state margins in the US Presidential election:
CA 4,244,280 (still incomplete) NY 1,702792 IL 944,714 MA 904,303
by comparison Trump's largest margin of victory was 807,179 in Texas.
I remember MaxPB putting up a list of where Clinton had campaigned - it was dominated by safe Democrat states.
Trump campaigned to win the EC, Hillary the popular vote, they both won but only one will become president
Except she didn't campaign to win the popular vote. She didn't spend any time in California, AFAIK? She campaigned to win the Electoral College but simply campaigned badly.
She spent more time in California fundraising than she did in Wisconsin campaigning
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
That is exactly the right line. The government's studied vagueness on Brexit is not helpful. There are a myriad of decisions to be taken for Brexit and careful consideration needs to be given to our priorities in the negotiations to come. It is absolutely right that the Opposition should test and challenge the priorities chosen. In fact it is an essential part of the process. May is wrong to say that she needs to keep her cards close to her chest. What she needs to do is develop a robust position which the country can get behind. So far I see little sign of it.
That will be the most profound question in British politics, not just in 2017 but for many years to come. As the broken promises of Brexit pile up one on top of the other, so that they are visible from Sunderland, from Great Yarmouth, from Newport, what will the leave voters do then?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/brexit-leave-voters-theresa-may-promise
Must be super frustrating for Lab supporters as Corbyn can be ignored yet he is always there.
Mark Sparrow
A beautiful collage of those well-known personalities who have departed this year by @christhebarker https://t.co/JZONJSvCZF
I think Southern Rail: The Board Game would be a runner. Unlike their trains.
"One major problem, he says, was that ministers ignored calls for a properly controlled evaluation of the programme - in which children would have been randomly assigned to a Sure Start or a non-Sure Start group.
He accuses Labour of deliberately ignoring the possibility the programme might not work:
"Academics were I think pretty unanimous in their view that a randomised controlled trial was the way ahead. But government vetoed that - I guess probably because evidence that it was less than perfect would be unwelcome."
The reluctance to have evidence based policy in this country is a painful weakness on all sides of the political divide. There needs to be far more emphasis on what works and what doesn't. Common sense and such research as we have does indeed suggest early intervention is key but what sort of intervention actually works? I am not sure we are much further forward with that.
However: the majority of the people there were, like us, middle class. One day I talked to one mother who is a software team leader, then immediately afterwards another who is involved in the planetary sciences. Whilst the group was useful for us, if you want to improve outcomes it wasn't spending focused on where it is most needed.
As an example, we were given a leaflet about reading to your children, and how free books were available from the library or SureStart centre. A great idea, but books - and now childrens' books - are not exactly uncommon in our house.
I can see how SureStart will help those who will have trouble raising children. Ours at least seemed to not be reaching such people (though I only got to see one years' worth of parents, and that might be unfair).
I would say our NCT group (which we paid for ourselves) was much more useful, and gave us contacts, a support group and friends that have lasted for nearly three years.
Mr. Charles, and Rosberg retired
Plu he is a devout man - there is a risk that one day God will tell him to do something more worthwhile with his life.
The only sane choice for the country would be EEA. In fact that's probably the only not horrible outcome that could be achieved by March 2019. However, that's never going to fly with the Brexitards in the Conservative party and May doesn't strike me as the type who'd be interested in putting the country ahead of her own survival. So we could get to March 2019 when the A50 clock runs our with no deal achieved and it will be the hardest of hard core Brexits with fetishwear, coprophagia and WTO tariffs.
That's why the tawse, the ball gag and the speculum are going to come out. Strap in and strap on, it's going to get hard.
It's only a flesh wound
I'm looking forward to watching the Obit Show on Channel 4, currently in pre-production by Menthorn Media. The twist is it's presented by a terminally ill celebrity. After they've departed they're the lead item on next week's show.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/35182/strike
I tried to get the Morning Star to provide a striking cover image - they originally agreed, but backed out later, saying that on reflection it wasn't right to play a game on a serious issue.
https://twitter.com/dylanhm/status/808439894087467008
CA 4,244,280 (still incomplete)
NY 1,702792
IL 944,714
MA 904,303
by comparison Trump's largest margin of victory was 807,179 in Texas.
I remember MaxPB putting up a list of where Clinton had campaigned - it was dominated by safe Democrat states.
He's obviously happy to see huge layoffs of skilled workers in the automotive sector, and huge rises in the cost of living and working for ordinary people, just so he can posture to the Tesla-driving residents of Islington.
Five points more to the Tories in the midlands marginals if he carries on with this, <20% is still very possible.
A sensible Labour leader might spend some money with the universities and technologists like the F1 teams and Tesla, to bring next-generation hybrid and electric cars to market - but Corbyn again shows he isn't that.
Hannibal used rivers/lakes to his advantage in numerous battles. Not an option at Zama.
Oh, and upgrade the national grid and build a fair few more power stations.
[To be fair, at many battles there was prolonged procrastination ahead of actually doing anything].
(For the avoidance of doubt this is a *joke*)
I think the unions have said they'd accept the ScotRail solution, so why not GTR?
You need to *stare threateningly* across the plain. Preferably banging your shields
[Small writing query from an editor].
Sooner or later this shit needs to properly come to market at an affordable price. In the meantime we're stuck with politicians with no vision pandering to the dead prehistoric creature industry.
When I come to renew my current 06 registered VW in a year or two, I want to be able to consider viable alternatives that are contributing less to the planet getting completely fucked. Where Islington leads, we'll all follow. Look at mobile phones
The local elections two years into a parliament are often where the opposition party holds its biggest lead:
1981 Opp +3 - Gov wins next general election
1985 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election
1989 Opp +6 - Gov wins next general election
1994 Opp +12- Opp wins next general election
1999 Gov +2 - Gov wins next general election
2003 Opp +5 - Gov wins next general election
2007 Opp +13 - Opp wins next general election
2012 Opp +7 - Gov wins next general election
The Opposition also had a lead of over 10% in 1976 and went on to win the following general election.
Still six months away but things are not looking good for Labour at present. Though a similar scenario appeared likely in the 2016 local elections only for the government to run into difficulties through Osborne's failed Budget and the IDS resignation.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/african-midwives-flown-in-for-fgm-parties-5rxqprnv8
Technology is advanced by making the new tech better than the old tech. When electric cars are cheaper than petrol cars and can go 300 miles between ten-minute charges then they'll sell by the bucketload. We need to push hard to develop this new tech, which universities like Cambridge and companies like Tesla, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes Motorsport are doing.
Banning the existing tech and condemning vast swathes of existing British industry and skilled jobs, while massively increasing costs for the average commuter, really isn't the way to do that. Oh, and I forget the 40bn in road fuel duty collected by the Treasury - from where would that be replaced if the petrol-powered cars were banned?
https://twitter.com/jntod/status/800025155133198336
Developing better engine tech is important but just stopping all petrol engines (indeed, banning them) would cost a fortune as well as infuriating those with perfectly good cars deemed to be illegal.
NEW THREAD
In my view it's a reasonable policy, albeit needing tweaking. We have to shift from our reliance on dead creatures.
2018 will also have relatively few seats up except in London so 2019 will be the big round of local elections .
But no, banning the internal combustion engine isn't the right solution, any more than banning horses would have been the right solution to the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894. Incentivising the production and use of electric cars and investing in the infrastructure to support them would be a better way to go.
The same as prison and crime prevention. Each prison sentence is an indication of failure. Prison only works as long as people don't go there. That's the paradox.