Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.
She made the Eurozone a German Empire though. And she would probably remain Chancellor for life if she chooses.
Schulz was not far behind her in a recent poll. Events like this will be the end for her.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
Well, there was always a historic division: the border betweeen Northumberland and County Durham was the river Tyne.
I agree with you though. Gateshead is a suburb of Newcastle.
That's also the case in London - south of the Thames was historically in Surrey or Kent, north of it and west of the Lea in Middlesex, east of the Lea in Essex. Yet only the pig-headed would argue that the likes of Walthamstow (Essex), Harlesden (Middlesex) and Wimbledon (Surrey) ought not be in Gtr London. In any case, it sounds as if we are in furious agreement!
Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.
She made the Eurozone a German Empire though. And she would probably remain Chancellor for life if she chooses.
Schulz was not far behind her in a recent poll. Events like this will be the end for her.
Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.
She made the Eurozone a German Empire though.
Not just the Eurozone. With the UK leaving the whole of the EU is effectively Greater Germany.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Because people don't want them - which is why they are being imposed without a referendum.
Still they will be a nice job creation scheme for Labour politicians and their advisors, assistants, consultants and spin doctors.
Ah yes, our short but ill-fated attempt at direct military rule. Like many, Cromwell learned that parliaments are great, but they constantly get in the way as well.
"They clamped down on what they considered to be rowdy behaviour (such as heavy drinking, music, dancing and fairs). They even tried to stop Christmas celebrations."
Now that's topical, Puritans where against Christmas, oh the irony haha.
IIRC accounts from the parliament in 1656 (principally Puritan of course) on Christmas day have, amusingly, a member lamenting how few of them were there due to the day. To wit:
Colonel Mathews. The House is thin; much, I believe, occasioned by observation of this day. I have a short Bill to prevent the superstition for the future. I desire it to be read.
Mr. Robinson. I could get no rest all night for the preparation of this foolish day's solemnity. This renders us, in the eyes of the people, to be profane. We are, I doubt, returning to Popery.
Major-General Kelsey and Major Morgan. If this had been ten days since, it might have been in good time; but let not this business jostle out great and eminent business, you having a twelve-months' time to provide this law. It is too late now to make a law against it.
Major-General Packer, Major Audley, and Sir Gilbert Pickering. If ever bill was well timed this bill is. You see how the people keep up these superstitious observations to your face; stricter, in many places, than they do the Lord'sday. One may pass from the Tower to Westminster and not a shop open, nor a creature stirring. It is a fit time now.
They desired it might be read.
Mr. Godfrey. If this Bill had not been moved to be read, I should not have pressed it; but seeing you have admitted it to a debate, and at this time, I hope we shall all witness against it: otherwise it will be said abroad that these superstitious days have favourites in this House.
An Act for abolishing and taking away festivals, commonly called holydays. Read the first time.
A terrible way to end a 2016 that's been fairly horrible for me personally, and very disruptive for the country and the world.
Described as a co-driver in some reports.
Sorry to hear that you've had a bad year. I hope 2017 will be better for your personally.
EDITED: And remember the year is not yet over. Think of all those NY Eve celebrations. The authorities must be having conniptions at the thought of policing those.
Thanks. I've seen the inside of A&E's a bit more than I'd like this year, but as all my nearest and dearest have lived through it I perhaps shouldn't have said 'horrible'.
I hope 2017 is brilliant for everyone on here (but I'm still Bah Humbug! over Christmas).
Your edit must worry everyone. I've never really liked large crowds (or flying), and generally try to avoid them, something that's got worse over time. Attacks like Nice and Berlin don't improve matters.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Because people don't want them - which is why they are being imposed without a referendum.
Still they will be a nice job creation scheme for Labour politicians and their advisors, assistants, consultants and spin doctors.
Show me a referendum where people voted down a mayoralty for Greater Manchester.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
On topic: Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the list above is out of date. The East Anglian deal is long dead (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are going ahead on their own) and a perfunctory internet search suggests that the Greater Lincolnshire plan was recently torpedoed by a no vote in the county council. I think the rest of it's correct though.
Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.
I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again.
I don't find it hard to imagine at all. I don't pretend to have a deep knowledge of Germany and its politics, but I think I do understand that (a) it's a rather different polity to our own and (b) people tend to stick with tried and tested leadership in turbulent times.
Besides, unless the CDU try to make like the Conservative Party and knife her a la Maggie, it's hard to see how she won't end up being re-elected. It seems highly unlikely that any of the other parties in the Bundestag is going to be strong enough to gather the necessary votes to elect an alternative.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
But they aren't the same thing. They were referendums on elected leaders of the already existing council. Nothing like the Mayor of Greater London who has control over infastructure like TFL.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.
All Trump's electors, bar one who was removed and replaced, appear to have voted for him.
At least four have not voted for her, which equals the faithless electors total for all elections since 1968 (not counting one abstention). It is also worth noting that this is the first election since 1872 where multiple electors have voted against the presidential, as opposed to the vice presidential, candidate (and that was because the candidate they were pledged to vote for was ineligible to be President on account of being dead at the time).
I have always said she was a terrible candidate and the Democrats should never have chosen her. But never, ever did I visualise a disaster like this. She can't even get votes that are promised to her by party loyalists when the alternative is Trump?
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
Interestingly you are not supposed to abolish even a parish council if it is still viable, I believe, meaning its not enough for the proposal at that level to be an improvement, as with merely transferring bits from one parish to another, it has to be shown the current arrangements do not work.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
But they aren't the same thing. They were referendums on elected leaders of the already existing council. Nothing like the Mayor of Greater London who has control over infastructure like TFL.
That's why I said 'the current round of ones are a little different in scope'. Your question was generic about people not wanting local elected mayors, those referendums were about local elected mayors of some type, the question was not about type of mayor proposal.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
But they aren't the same thing. They were referendums on elected leaders of the already existing council. Nothing like the Mayor of Greater London who has control over infastructure like TFL.
Telegraph reporting that Germany's N24 TV station say that "at least" nine are dead, including passenger in lorry. One man has been apprehended. Not a good day.
Eyewitness reports mention 'popping' as the lorry drove through the market, and the windscreen looks mashed. Perhaps armed cops prevented further carnage.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.
Last time I checked there were fewer councillors than voters. If there is a desire to merge into a city, they will elect elect those who promise to do that.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.
So you oppose one of them. Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!
A terrible way to end a 2016 that's been fairly horrible for me personally, and very disruptive for the country and the world.
Described as a co-driver in some reports.
Sorry to hear that you've had a bad year. I hope 2017 will be better for your personally.
EDITED: And remember the year is not yet over. Think of all those NY Eve celebrations. The authorities must be having conniptions at the thought of policing those.
Thanks. I've seen the inside of A&E's a bit more than I'd like this year, but as all my nearest and dearest have lived through it I perhaps shouldn't have said 'horrible'.
I hope 2017 is brilliant for everyone on here (but I'm still Bah Humbug! over Christmas).
Your edit must worry everyone. I've never really liked large crowds (or flying), and generally try to avoid them, something that's got worse over time. Attacks like Nice and Berlin don't improve matters.
I'm not really one for mass NY Eve celebrations in the street. This year I am going to what promises to be a good party with some good friends with whom I always end up having a good time. One of my sons will be in Amsterdam with friends. You hope and pray that they will be safe. But I'm damned if I'm going to let a bunch of evil terrorists who are not fit to lick what comes out of my dog's bottom ruin my and my family's way of life and freedom.
I just wish we had leaders in charge who were determined to defeat this evil not appease it and excuse it and go all wibbly and generally behave like a chocolate teapot in front of a fire.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!
I thought this was one of Osbornes schemes? Sorry!
Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.
Last time I checked there were fewer councillors than voters. If there is a desire to merge into a city, they will elect elect those who promise to do that.
They already are in cities - real geography makes that so.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Yes, a little different in scope. if the use of adjective offends you pick another. As I said, i don't even think local views need be a barrier, but if one believes local people should indicate they want something, as implied by Gallowgate by asking for proof people don't want it, then we have proof people were against the earlier proposal and no proof people want the expanded proposal, so it undermines the case in Manchester still further as apparently positive demonstration is needed. Now, that one seems pretty well thought out, so it'd probably be a mistake if it had not happened due to not wanting to risk another referendum, but it does seem strange that at one time we (or at least the government) thought it vital the people directly indicate consent and then decided they couldn't be trusted.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!
I thought this was one of Osbornes schemes? Sorry!
Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.
Again. There have been no referendums in metro areas. None.
Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.
Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.
Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.
So much for democracy.
Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.
The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.
Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.
Last time I checked there were fewer councillors than voters. If there is a desire to merge into a city, they will elect elect those who promise to do that.
They already are in cities - real geography makes that so.
Perhaps my view of local government has been skewed by the US. Many large conurbations consist of multiple relatively small independent neighbouring cities.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
'A little different in scope'. Lol.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.
They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!
I thought this was one of Osbornes schemes? Sorry!
Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.
Again. There have been no referendums in metro areas. None.
No, but there have been referendums on local mayors.
Just for the record. The policeman in Turkey. Initial thoughts are not that he is IS linked. Certainly jihadists have responded by inciting further attacks on Russian facilities.
Downthread comments about the joys of Northern Ireland-linked terrorism. I grew up in what can be best described as a difficult area of Belfast and the sense of tension of the randomness of terror attacks that people associate with events in Europe and the Middle East was very much a reality.
The state of hyper awareness of everything doesn't disappear. Many years ago, after the official Troubles were meant to have ended, I briefly met a guy called Ian Bothwell of the Crossfire Trust based near Darkley in South Armagh, a place with its own grim history. In one sentence he made it all clear in a way that somehow you could feel but just never realised.
'There is a lot of hurt and stress in this place'
It was the word 'stress' that really did it. It's there in people who lived through it. Sure its no Aleppo, it was certainly no Bosnia but the relentless grind, the tension never mind actual events just seeps in. That is how it is in such a conflicted place.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parlianame, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked elogic.
Only if yom.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.
Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.
I said no such thing - I do not think the way the scheme of metro mayors has gone about has been done well, based on what I have heard (and I did not say just in Bristol, so apparently you are unable to read, I said that one specifically, as I have most information on that, but that I am told that the problems there are mirrored elsewhere) and so overall I think the confusion that will arise will not be made up by the benefits to the people, but that does not mean I think every place that has had a mayor proposal (old or recent) should not get one. I even said Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, another point you seem to have missed.
I have been attempting to make a point about the overall implementation of what could be a good idea but which has been handled poorly, in my view, but that does not mean I think every instance of the proposal will end up being poor, or that they should be abandoned now (it is too late, for starters).
But you are obviously determined to misinterpret what I am trying to get across, however poorly or not I have made that point, since it apparently is making you feel better.
"I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again."
Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.
I don't know about the polls Andy, but her party has been on the bad end of a number of results in actual elections recently.
Her recent policy stances - burqa bans, interceptor boats in the med - suggest that she's being told that she is considered as soft.
I find it very hard to believe that the Germans are any different to ourselves or the French or anyone else for that matter if we perceive our nation and culture to be under attack, though they may be quieter about it than us for historical reasons.
She's invited one million predominantly muslim migrants in. There may be no direct connection to this and previous attacks, but the public will just see the accumulation of events, the commonality of culprit and draw conclusions about her judgement in granting so much access.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
We'll turn into Israel in short order if that happens.
Yes, some of which have been won (i.e. City of Bristol), others of which have been lost (i.e. City of Manchester). Yet won or lost they tell us nothing as they were for the city proper only and for an entirely different system to the metro mayors. You might as well argue that there is no point electing MPs as local people have already voted for their council - just use that result again, despite it being a) across a different scope b) to a different body c) for a package of different powers.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.
So you oppose one of them. Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.
Your descriptions show why they are a bad idea - they are concentrating power into big cities and away from the regional towns and smaller cities.
At least some of the old metropolitan counties recognised this danger - South Yorkshire was headquartered in Barnsley and West Yorkshire in Wakefield.
Of course the easy thing to do would be have referendums in the areas affected to see if they want this new layer of government.
That we are not is pretty clear evidence that the government knows what the results would be.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
We'll turn into Israel in short order if that happens.
So what's your solution? Not to defeat the terrorists? Not to counter the ideology which animates them? To let in actual / potential terrorists into our countries? What exactly?
It seems to me that the most essential task a state has to do is to keep - or try to keep - its citizens safe from external and internal enemies. A state which gives up on that is failing in its most basic and essential duty.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.
Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.
But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.
Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.
Also, local authority boundaries in a region like Manchester mean very little meaningful.
The idea of a mayor is to help promote the economy primarily.
The economy of Manchester for example bear little resemblance to any political boundary, where it is commuting patterns, places of work or investment, the road down with the boundary between Manchester and Trafford or Salford or Tameside or Stockport is meaningless.
To drive the economy the mayor needs to plan for the whole region that makes up that economy, the metro mayor go along way to achieve that.
Anyone who has ever been to Manchester would soon recognise that where the city of Manchester boundaries lie are almost meaningless in terms of the local economy, as such to restrict a mayor to that area would be bonkers.
Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.
The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.
There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.
Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.
It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.
The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.
Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.
It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.
Only if ym.
Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?
West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.
So you oppose one of them. Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.
Of course the easy thing to do would be have referendums in the areas affected to see if they want this new layer of government.
That we are not is pretty clear evidence that the government knows what the results would be.
Indeed. Personally I see greater amalgamation of powers for larger areas as, by and large, probably a good thing, if there was a clearer structure to it so it was less of a mess, and direct imposition does not offend my sensibilities (and which did not happen here of course) - but clearly the government wanted people to choose to have elected mayors, and they said no, and they don't want to risk that happening again with these new proposals, but if they thought it was a good idea for a referendum before why not now, why was council approval not the way back then?
It is not just Greater London that shows that mayors can work and should be replicated around the world, but just about every major western city has a mayor that covers the economic area.
Alas, some people don't wish out non-London cities to have the same opportunity.
Also, local authority boundaries in a region like Manchester mean very little meaningful.
The idea of a mayor is to help promote the economy primarily.
The economy of Manchester for example bear little resemblance to any political boundary, where it is commuting patterns, places of work or investment, the road down with the boundary between Manchester and Trafford or Salford or Tameside or Stockport is meaningless.
To drive the economy the mayor needs to plan for the whole region that makes up that economy, the metro mayor go along way to achieve that.
Anyone who has ever been to Manchester would soon recognise that where the city of Manchester boundaries lie are almost meaningless in terms of the local economy, as such to restrict a mayor to that area would be bonkers.
A simple point that most on here fail to grasp. The same is true in Newcastle and Liverpool, although in Manchester the current boundaries are especially bonkers.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
We'll turn into Israel in short order if that happens.
So what's your solution? Not to defeat the terrorists? Not to counter the ideology which animates them? To let in actual / potential terrorists into our countries? What exactly?
It seems to me that the most essential task a state has to do is to keep - or try to keep - its citizens safe from external and internal enemies. A state which gives up on that is failing in its most basic and essential duty.
I'm not disagreeing with you CF. The smack of firm government will be needed.
Just for the record. The policeman in Turkey. Initial thoughts are not that he is IS linked. Certainly jihadists have responded by inciting further attacks on Russian facilities.
Downthread comments about the joys of Northern Ireland-linked terrorism. I grew up in what can be best described as a difficult area of Belfast and the sense of tension of the randomness of terror attacks that people associate with events in Europe and the Middle East was very much a reality.
The state of hyper awareness of everything doesn't disappear. Many years ago, after the official Troubles were meant to have ended, I briefly met a guy called Ian Bothwell of the Crossfire Trust based near Darkley in South Armagh, a place with its own grim history. In one sentence he made it all clear in a way that somehow you could feel but just never realised.
'There is a lot of hurt and stress in this place'
It was the word 'stress' that really did it. It's there in people who lived through it. Sure its no Aleppo, it was certainly no Bosnia but the relentless grind, the tension never mind actual events just seeps in. That is how it is in such a conflicted place.
Recently my father told me about having to check under his car everyday before he went to work. The left's new found love for the IRA and their supporters is quite disturbing.
"I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again."
Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.
Friend of mine (hardcore Labour) works for the German national broadcaster. He says the level of state censorship is quite unbelieveable (and I repeat he is a BBC liberal-lefty, hates Tories etc)
Anything remotely critical of refugees/immigrants is routinely ruled out of order. Not broadcast. Anything with even a hint of controversiality on the issue of race/culture is regarded as repulsive.
The liberal German consensus MUST be imposed and observed.
Also, there is no idea of a balance of opinion. So, if my pal recruits some liberal to say "Oooh look how well the refugees are integrating, it's all fantastic" then he naturally (as a British TV journo) seeks an opposing view, but his editors stare at him in horror and bewilderment. Thus the positive view is televised, without any balance.
That's German TV. I do not exaggerate.
Merkel may be re-elected.
Doubtless I will be criticized for saying this but the Germans do seem to have a historic need to feel superior.
This has taken various forms over the centuries - 'kultur', militarism, racism and since 1945 economics / business.
There now seems to be a need to feel morally superior as best evidenced by Merkel and her various decisions from nuclear power to migration.
It is not just Greater London that shows that mayors can work and should be replicated around the world, but just about every major western city has a mayor that covers the economic area.
Alas, some people don't wish out non-London cities to have the same opportunity.
And depressingly it is actually people in the underperforming cities themsrlves.
The UKs problem is not an overweening Sheffield subsuming Barnsley!
It is not just Greater London that shows that mayors can work and should be replicated around the world, but just about every major western city has a mayor that covers the economic area.
Alas, some people don't wish out non-London cities to have the same opportunity.
In what way have the metro mayoralties in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield been handled poorly?
Oh for f*ck's sake, I do not have specific examples of bureaucratic minutiae for each individual scheme, I was making a general f*cking point about haphazard implementation you seem to have taken personally as though counsel for specific cities, and intent on ignoring when I said ones were sensible as you keep on bringing up cities I already stated I did not object to, so not to get all SeanT, I don't know how you respond to other points when you are unable to read others, strategically. The fact that different areas get different powers, that there is such confusion over which areas are included, or choose to be included, I think this is a problem. I think there should be a clear blueprint if you are going to have a new layer of local government, different arrangements (even if only marginally different) in different places just confuse an already confused system, if these are good ideas there should be a wholesale reorganization of how we do local government, not picking around the edges adding complexities.
Congratulations, you've won the day, via point 3 of the following.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.
Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.
But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.
Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.
Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...
It's not controversial it's grim facts. There will never be a way to eliminate terrorism.
We are a long way from the end of history although we have had a couple of false dawns in the past.
And as for imported terrorists, well look at 7/7 and also 9/11 (Saudis not Iraqis). It can come from anywhere. I am not, though, saying that importing large numbers of FAMs is a particularly great idea.
Downthread comments about the joys of Northern Ireland-linked terrorism. I grew up in what can be best described as a difficult area of Belfast and the sense of tension of the randomness of terror attacks that people associate with events in Europe and the Middle East was very much a reality.
The state of hyper awareness of everything doesn't disappear.
People forget how bad it was. One of my ongoing criticisms of PB (although to be fair, it's wider society generally instead of PB specifically) is its lack of memory
You declared metro mayors as a bloody poor idea and a mess. Yet 4/5 you are apparently happy with (or neutral). The fifth, Bristol, you are unhappy with.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.
Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.
But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.
Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.
Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...
I think far more could be done to confront the ideology which animates Islamists. Liberal values are better and we should say so and show how evil and horrible their world view is. When there were problems with the BNP and similar Nazi/fascist style groups in the 1970's, we had the Anti-Nazi movements and there was a vigorous - and largely successful - attempt to confront those who showed a penchant for fascism. We don't do anything like the same in relation to those who show a penchant for the Islamist version. Rather, we (or some of us, at any rate) are far too willing to explain it away or excuse it or justify it. If we do not provide a better belief system, a better account, a better story, if we do not say that what these people think and believe and do is wrong and repulsive, we can hardly be surprised if it attracts enough support to be a thorough nuisance or worse.
Yes, intelligence and prosecutions and a sensible immigration policy are essential. But bad ideas, bad ideologies are defeated by good ideas. We should have much more confidence in our virtues and values and ideas and stand up for them and promulgate them. Western Enlightenment values and what they have brought are good and better than the alternatives. Islamist thought is not good; it is horrible and dark and brings evil in its wake. We should not appease it. We should shun it and fight it and stop it spreading its tentacles amongst our Muslim young. They are our young too and I don't want them succumbing to something which will destroy them as much as it will destroy us.
...Blade Runner was a masterpiece. Apparently Dark City is of a similar style. I am saving it for this weekend when I can finally put my feet up.
Dark City is perhaps overrated: its plot (without giving away spoilers) was explored in other 90's movies and was a bit of a cliche (you'll know which one when you see it)
In what way have the metro mayoralties in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield been handled poorly?
Oh for f*ck's sake, I do not have specific examples of bureaucratic minutiae for each individual scheme, I was making a general f*cking point about haphazard implementation you seem to have taken personally as though counsel for specific cities, and intent on ignoring when I said ones were sensible as you keep on bringing up cities I already stated I did not object to, so not to get all SeanT, I don't know how you respond to other points when you are unable to read others, strategically. The fact that different areas get different powers, that there is such confusion over which areas are included, or choose to be included, I think this is a problem. I think there should be a clear blueprint if you are going to have a new layer of local government, different arrangements (even if only marginally different) in different places just confuse an already confused system, if these are good ideas there should be a wholesale reorganization of how we do local government, not picking around the edges adding complexities.
Congratulations, you've won the day, via point 3 of the following.
Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.
So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.
Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.
Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.
But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.
Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.
Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...
It's not controversial it's grim facts. There will never be a way to eliminate terrorism.
We are a long way from the end of history although we have had a couple of false dawns in the past.
And as for imported terrorists, well look at 7/7 and also 9/11 (Saudis not Iraqis). It can come from anywhere. I am not, though, saying that importing large numbers of FAMs is a particularly great idea.
The terrorists of 7/7 were the children of immigrants. Nice was committed by an immigrant. Bataclan and Hebdo were committed by the children of immigrants. That is one of the hard but uncomfortable facts: you may well invite in immigrants who seem to integrate and then find that the next generation does not and succumbs to extremist winds which blow in from their parents' homelands or from the epicenter of their religion/culture. So the authorities need to ask: if this is a risk - more than a theoretical risk - as France and other countries have shown, does it make sense to permit further (large scale) immigration from those groups most likely to be at risk of extremism?
In deciding whom to let into a country, surely one of the first questions the state should be considering is whether this puts the existing population in that country (the primary concern of any government) at risk of harm.
I think far more could be done to confront the ideology which animates Islamists. Liberal values are better and we should say so and show how evil and horrible their world view is. When there were problems with the BNP and similar Nazi/fascist style groups in the 1970's, we had the Anti-Nazi movements and there was a vigorous - and largely successful - attempt to confront those who showed a penchant for fascism. We don't do anything like the same in relation to those who show a penchant for the Islamist version. Rather, we (or some of us, at any rate) are far too willing to explain it away or excuse it or justify it. If we do not provide a better belief system, a better account, a better story, if we do not say that what these people think and believe and do is wrong and repulsive, we can hardly be surprised if it attracts enough support to be a thorough nuisance or worse.
Yes, intelligence and prosecutions and a sensible immigration policy are essential. But bad ideas, bad ideologies are defeated by good ideas. We should have much more confidence in our virtues and values and ideas and stand up for them and promulgate them. Western Enlightenment values and what they have brought are good and better than the alternatives. Islamist thought is not good; it is horrible and dark and brings evil. in its wake. We should not appease it. We should shun it and fight it and stop it spreading its tentacles amongst our Muslim young. They are our young too and I don't want them succumbing to something which will destroy them as much as it will destroy us.
I agree with you very strongly, then.
I fear we in the West have lost our ability to justify and defend our way of life. Why liberal democracy? Why freedom of speech? Why rule of law?
If we cannot defend it, we will lose it. If not to Islamist, then to others.
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January
Balls, the results in each states are certified by attainment with signed certificates as of now.
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
Sorry, then I've misunderstood why the Electoral College are still casting votes for the candidates.
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January
Balls, the results in each states are certified by attainment with signed certificates as of now.
My name is not "Balls". Read what I said again. The election is a three-stage process: the popular vote in November, the electoral college in December, the Congress certification in January. After those stages are complete, the Inauguration can then tak place (also in January).
I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.
Good evening, everyone.
The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.
The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January
Balls, the results in each states are certified by attainment with signed certificates as of now.
My name is not "Balls". Read what I said again. The election is a three-stage process: the popular vote in November, the electoral college in December, the Congress certification in January. After those stages are complete, the Inauguration can then tak place (also in January).
[edit: 4->3]
The results now are CERTAIN. Stamped, sealed. Do you expect to wait for parliament to open for a payout on Tory Majority when our GE happens ?
Comments
http://www.kvue.com/news/politics/texas-electors-to-meet-for-official-vote-monday/373043089
Still they will be a nice job creation scheme for Labour politicians and their advisors, assistants, consultants and spin doctors.
Colonel Mathews. The House is thin; much, I believe, occasioned by observation of this day. I have a short Bill to prevent the superstition for the future. I desire it to be read.
Mr. Robinson. I could get no rest all night for the preparation of this foolish day's solemnity. This renders us, in the eyes of the people, to be profane. We are, I doubt, returning to Popery.
Major-General Kelsey and Major Morgan. If this had been ten days since, it might have been in good time; but let not this business jostle out great and eminent business, you having a twelve-months' time to provide this law. It is too late now to make a law against it.
Major-General Packer, Major Audley, and Sir Gilbert Pickering. If ever bill was well timed this bill is. You see how the people keep up these superstitious observations to your face; stricter, in many places, than they do the Lord'sday. One may pass from the Tower to Westminster and not a shop open, nor a creature stirring. It is a fit time now.
They desired it might be read.
Mr. Godfrey. If this Bill had not been moved to be read, I should not have pressed it; but seeing you have admitted it to a debate, and at this time, I hope we shall all witness against it: otherwise it will be said abroad that these superstitious days have favourites in this House.
An Act for abolishing and taking away festivals, commonly called holydays. Read the first time.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/burton-diaries/vol1/pp228-243
I hope 2017 is brilliant for everyone on here (but I'm still Bah Humbug! over Christmas).
Your edit must worry everyone. I've never really liked large crowds (or flying), and generally try to avoid them, something that's got worse over time. Attacks like Nice and Berlin don't improve matters.
10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.
Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.
Besides, unless the CDU try to make like the Conservative Party and knife her a la Maggie, it's hard to see how she won't end up being re-elected. It seems highly unlikely that any of the other parties in the Bundestag is going to be strong enough to gather the necessary votes to elect an alternative.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/810948943001612290
All Trump's electors, bar one who was removed and replaced, appear to have voted for him.
At least four have not voted for her, which equals the faithless electors total for all elections since 1968 (not counting one abstention). It is also worth noting that this is the first election since 1872 where multiple electors have voted against the presidential, as opposed to the vice presidential, candidate (and that was because the candidate they were pledged to vote for was ineligible to be President on account of being dead at the time).
I have always said she was a terrible candidate and the Democrats should never have chosen her. But never, ever did I visualise a disaster like this. She can't even get votes that are promised to her by party loyalists when the alternative is Trump?
Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.
Manchester referendum - 1 council.
Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.
Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.
I just wish we had leaders in charge who were determined to defeat this evil not appease it and excuse it and go all wibbly and generally behave like a chocolate teapot in front of a fire.
Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.
Downthread comments about the joys of Northern Ireland-linked terrorism. I grew up in what can be best described as a difficult area of Belfast and the sense of tension of the randomness of terror attacks that people associate with events in Europe and the Middle East was very much a reality.
The state of hyper awareness of everything doesn't disappear. Many years ago, after the official Troubles were meant to have ended, I briefly met a guy called Ian Bothwell of the Crossfire Trust based near Darkley in South Armagh, a place with its own grim history. In one sentence he made it all clear in a way that somehow you could feel but just never realised.
'There is a lot of hurt and stress in this place'
It was the word 'stress' that really did it. It's there in people who lived through it. Sure its no Aleppo, it was certainly no Bosnia but the relentless grind, the tension never mind actual events just seeps in. That is how it is in such a conflicted place.
I have been attempting to make a point about the overall implementation of what could be a good idea but which has been handled poorly, in my view, but that does not mean I think every instance of the proposal will end up being poor, or that they should be abandoned now (it is too late, for starters).
But you are obviously determined to misinterpret what I am trying to get across, however poorly or not I have made that point, since it apparently is making you feel better.
Her recent policy stances - burqa bans, interceptor boats in the med - suggest that she's being told that she is considered as soft.
I find it very hard to believe that the Germans are any different to ourselves or the French or anyone else for that matter if we perceive our nation and culture to be under attack, though they may be quieter about it than us for historical reasons.
She's invited one million predominantly muslim migrants in. There may be no direct connection to this and previous attacks, but the public will just see the accumulation of events, the commonality of culprit and draw conclusions about her judgement in granting so much access.
Yes, some of which have been won (i.e. City of Bristol), others of which have been lost (i.e. City of Manchester). Yet won or lost they tell us nothing as they were for the city proper only and for an entirely different system to the metro mayors. You might as well argue that there is no point electing MPs as local people have already voted for their council - just use that result again, despite it being a) across a different scope b) to a different body c) for a package of different powers.
At least some of the old metropolitan counties recognised this danger - South Yorkshire was headquartered in Barnsley and West Yorkshire in Wakefield.
Of course the easy thing to do would be have referendums in the areas affected to see if they want this new layer of government.
That we are not is pretty clear evidence that the government knows what the results would be.
In what way have the metro mayoralties in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield been handled poorly?
It seems to me that the most essential task a state has to do is to keep - or try to keep - its citizens safe from external and internal enemies. A state which gives up on that is failing in its most basic and essential duty.
Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.
But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.
Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.
Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...
The idea of a mayor is to help promote the economy primarily.
The economy of Manchester for example bear little resemblance to any political boundary, where it is commuting patterns, places of work or investment, the road down with the boundary between Manchester and Trafford or Salford or Tameside or Stockport is meaningless.
To drive the economy the mayor needs to plan for the whole region that makes up that economy, the metro mayor go along way to achieve that.
Anyone who has ever been to Manchester would soon recognise that where the city of Manchester boundaries lie are almost meaningless in terms of the local economy, as such to restrict a mayor to that area would be bonkers.
Wakefield and Barnsley are not under a current mayoral proposal. Why is it a good idea for Greater London to have a mayoralty but not Gtr Manchester?
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/810863828770689025
Alas, some people don't wish out non-London cities to have the same opportunity.
This is getting boring now.
Come on betfair it's time to settle....
This has taken various forms over the centuries - 'kultur', militarism, racism and since 1945 economics / business.
There now seems to be a need to feel morally superior as best evidenced by Merkel and her various decisions from nuclear power to migration.
The Blade Runner sequel trailer is out
The UKs problem is not an overweening Sheffield subsuming Barnsley!
http://americannews.com/hillary-clintons-hitman-reveals-dark-secret-that-she-thought-hed-take-to-the-grave/
https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/810952909903069184
A good thing we didn't take all these refugees or else ISIS would have attacked us for undermining narratives (sarcasm).
Again, in what ways are the metro mayoralties for Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield a "mess" ?
Congratulations, you've won the day, via point 3 of the following.
http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2015/10/25/how-to-win-an-argument.html
Have a lovely evening.
Blade Runner was a masterpiece.
Apparently Dark City is of a similar style. I am saving it for this weekend when I can finally put my feet up.
We are a long way from the end of history although we have had a couple of false dawns in the past.
And as for imported terrorists, well look at 7/7 and also 9/11 (Saudis not Iraqis). It can come from anywhere. I am not, though, saying that importing large numbers of FAMs is a particularly great idea.
You declared metro mayors as a bloody poor idea and a mess. Yet 4/5 you are apparently happy with (or neutral). The fifth, Bristol, you are unhappy with.
There was a good reason why certain employers took a keen interest in who you/your relatives voted for.
Yes, intelligence and prosecutions and a sensible immigration policy are essential. But bad ideas, bad ideologies are defeated by good ideas. We should have much more confidence in our virtues and values and ideas and stand up for them and promulgate them. Western Enlightenment values and what they have brought are good and better than the alternatives. Islamist thought is not good; it is horrible and dark and brings evil in its wake. We should not appease it. We should shun it and fight it and stop it spreading its tentacles amongst our Muslim young. They are our young too and I don't want them succumbing to something which will destroy them as much as it will destroy us.
In deciding whom to let into a country, surely one of the first questions the state should be considering is whether this puts the existing population in that country (the primary concern of any government) at risk of harm.
I fear we in the West have lost our ability to justify and defend our way of life. Why liberal democracy? Why freedom of speech? Why rule of law?
If we cannot defend it, we will lose it. If not to Islamist, then to others.
Good evening, everyone.
[edit: 4->3]