Morning all. Very good thread on the various possibilities and probabilities of the by-election.
In my mind the one unknown is the local mayor - what was his platform, and is there a chance that he - or one of his supporters - could upset the apple cart?
It's not like they're more productive, either. The wives don't work.
Wives don't work ? Go to countries like Bangladesh. Every woman works. 4m work in the garments industry. Some of your shirts and knitwear are made there.
Yes, but we were not talking about "countries like Bangladesh", we were talking about the UK, so stop pointing at squirrels. The Labour Force Survey is unequivocable:
For women, economic inactivity was highest amongst the Arab (64%) Bangladeshi (61%), Pakistani (60%) or Gypsy or Irish Travellers (60%) groups.
It's not like they're more productive, either. The wives don't work.
Wives don't work ? Go to countries like Bangladesh. Every woman works. 4m work in the garments industry. Some of your shirts and knitwear are made there.
Yes, but we were not talking about "countries like Bangladesh", we were talking about the UK, so stop pointing at squirrels. The Labour Force Survey is unequivocable:
For women, economic inactivity was highest amongst the Arab (64%) Bangladeshi (61%), Pakistani (60%) or Gypsy or Irish Travellers (60%) groups.
LOL at @SeanT's story of the day. Visions of two guys staggering out of the Savoy after a very long lunch, complete with bottle of champagne, to the shock and displeasure of a bunch of onlookers. Fair play to them, Merry Christmas!
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
@Sandpit the official statistics won't pick up a lot of economic activity, however, such as work in the home (which might well constitute a business in our eyes) or in a family business such as taking a turn behind the counter in a corner shop.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
The government was elected after promising a referendum on the subject.
The referendum happened, the result was clear by more than a million votes.
The government will now implement the result as best they can, and the people can decide at the next election whether they continue to support the government or would prefer to see different people in charge.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
"Should the Germans cancel Christmas because of a murderous nutter? "
I find it most interesting that a Muslim that intentionally drives a 40 tonne Steel laden wagon at 40mph through innocent shoppers at a Christmas market killing 12 and injuring many is simply described as a "murderous nutter", isolated, with no connection inferred or made whatsoever to others of similar faith........
Yet ........ when an MP is horrifically murdered in the course of her duties during a democratic referendum by not only a "murderous nutter" but also a proven deranged one, the responsibility was consistently laid at the door of every leaver as if we were all guilty of this heinous crime and at one point contributory to the act and even extremists ourselves.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
The vote is being respected in that the government is trying very hard to look for a version of Brexit that won't damage the country beyond repair. If they ultimately give up and declare it to be impossible, that would be an immeasurable gain for the country as we will then know that attempting to leave the EU is a bad idea that can only lead to humiliation.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
I agree. Brexit means Brexit after all.
I don't expect Brexit to deliver a fraction of what was promised, but disappointment and disillusionment with broken promises are pretty fundamental to democracy.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
Either way had remain won the day you can be absolutely certain it would have been a fully binding democratic process, the people had spoken and their will must be accepted. Even the very thought of "advisory only" would never have been mentioned. Remainers would have reacted with outrage if anyone dared to challenge this fully democratic process in words let alone through the courts because this democratic process is what sets us aside and makes this country so great.
They were behind the process, expected to win and took that for granted. However they lost. The rest then followed........
it's not democracy it's just utter, total undiluted hypocrisy.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
The vote is being respected in that the government is trying very hard to look for a version of Brexit that won't damage the country beyond repair. If they ultimately give up and declare it to be impossible, that would be an immeasurable gain for the country as we will then know that attempting to leave the EU is a bad idea that can only lead to humiliation.
No, what it would mean would be the disillusionment of a great many people with the political class and quite possibly the political process itself. It would be manna to extremists and radicals who would play on the belief - which would be then well-justified by the facts - that the governing class always get what they want because the system is rigged to allow them to and that they hold the opinions of normal people in contempt to such an extent that they feel that they can openly ignore them.
That way lies at the minimum, severe political disturbance and at worst - if combined with a recession, unemployment and terrorist attacks, for example - quite possibly widescale violence and the election or installation of a non-democratic government.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine and the sort of twaddle that is pushed by some would-be opinion-formers (without evidence; indeed, in the face of available evidence), that leads people to suspect that the governing class must have an ulterior motive given that their arguments make no sense on their own merits.
Not Brexiting holes the political process below the waterline. "Why bother with voting - it doesn't work?" Frustrations would be vented by other means I fear.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine
Maybe it's too early in the morning but that sentence makes no sense to me. It seems to be saying that any form of Brexit *will* damage the country beyond repair. Which is at odds with the rest of your paragraph (which I agree with, with the important difference that I suggest an attempt to over-rule this result and say it is impossible to leave the EU would lead ultimately to war with Europe, which I think anyone sane would be anxious to avoid - therefore Druncker may be aiming for it).
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
I agree. Brexit means Brexit after all.
I don't expect Brexit to deliver a fraction of what was promised, but disappointment and disillusionment with broken promises are pretty fundamental to democracy.
"Should the Germans cancel Christmas because of a murderous nutter? "
I find it most interesting that a Muslim that intentionally drives a 40 tonne Steel laden wagon at 40mph through innocent shoppers at a Christmas market killing 12 and injuring many is simply described as a "murderous nutter", isolated, with no connection inferred or made whatsoever to others of similar faith........
Yet ........ when an MP is horrifically murdered in the course of her duties during a democratic referendum by not only a "murderous nutter" but also a proven deranged one, the responsibility was consistently laid at the door of every leaver as if we were all guilty of this heinous crime and at one point contributory to the act and even extremists ourselves.
Most Enlightening.
The terrorist in Berlin was clearly a religiously motivated murderous nutter. All the more reason to not cancel normal German Christmas festivities. Do not do as he wants.
You may have missed all my posts over the years emphasising liberal values over socially conservative Islamist ones.
The Jo Cox killer was found guilty in a British court, which could have found diminished responsibility by reason of insanity, but did not. Bad not Mad.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
The vote is being respected in that the government is trying very hard to look for a version of Brexit that won't damage the country beyond repair. If they ultimately give up and declare it to be impossible, that would be an immeasurable gain for the country as we will then know that attempting to leave the EU is a bad idea that can only lead to humiliation.
What will damage the country beyond repair is the idea that the political classes can just ignore the result of a referendum.
Brexit is going to happen for a whole number of reasons, but primarily because the government will get crucified at the next election if it doesn't!
Are those in favour of ignoring the referendum result also in favour of UKIP being at worst the Opposition in the next Parliament? Because that's what will happen if Brexit doesn't.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
The vote is being respected in that the government is trying very hard to look for a version of Brexit that won't damage the country beyond repair. If they ultimately give up and declare it to be impossible, that would be an immeasurable gain for the country as we will then know that attempting to leave the EU is a bad idea that can only lead to humiliation.
What will damage the country beyond repair is the idea that the political classes can just ignore the result of a referendum.
Brexit is going to happen for a whole number of reasons, but primarily because the government will get crucified at the next election if it doesn't!
Are those in favour of ignoring the referendum result also in favour of UKIP being at worst the Opposition in the next Parliament? Because that's what will happen if Brexit doesn't.
The tragedy is because of the way this referendum has been done, the country will be damaged whatever happens.
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
I agree. Brexit means Brexit after all.
I don't expect Brexit to deliver a fraction of what was promised, but disappointment and disillusionment with broken promises are pretty fundamental to democracy.
Noone could deliver what Brexit promised.
The problem for the EU is that they are hardly in a position to lecture others on broken promises.
Having promised freedom, democracy, peace, plenty and prosperity for all while delivering mass unemployment, austerity, the imposition of undemocratic government to meet bailout terms, huge gaps between rich and poor and not least the world's highest food prices, they have a poor track record on such things.
Of course Brexit will fail to live up to the promises. But the EU's broken promises seem pretty serious as well,
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
The vote is being respected in that the government is trying very hard to look for a version of Brexit that won't damage the country beyond repair. If they ultimately give up and declare it to be impossible, that would be an immeasurable gain for the country as we will then know that attempting to leave the EU is a bad idea that can only lead to humiliation.
Copeland has always been a very weak constituency for the LDs and their preedecessors. For example in 1983 the Alliance polled just 16% compared to 26% nationally.
The German police are looking more and more farcical, as the story unfolds about the Berlin atrocity. Increasingly, it seems that the whole European establishment didn't have a clue about the implications of throwing open the borders. What a joke the project is
Meanwhile, someone daft is launching a new legal challenge, this time seemingly upset the Government might not impose deranged and indefensible laws to damage the free press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38396265
It's hard to imagine how somebody could come up with the idea of making newspapers reimburse the costs of vexatious litigants without that person being a fool or a knave.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
In what circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn be challenged again? He's just been given a vote of no confidence by almost the entire Parliamentary party, been challenged and won convincingly.
It's hard to imagine how somebody could come up with the idea of making newspapers reimburse the costs of vexatious litigants without that person being a fool or a knave.
Newspapers would be able to return to the normal rule on costs if they so choose. They're not without options.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
They won't hold back, for two reasons:
1) Especially after Richmond, they need to show they are serious about fighting for every seat;
2) Although Corbyn should go in the unlikely event Labour lose (which would be a serious upset cum disaster) he won't go voluntarily and removing him, even if it were possible, would be an extremely nasty, very public fight which would show Labour in the worst possible light and leave them at least as divided as they are now afterwards, possibly with quite a lot of the core vote defecting or staying at home. Remember, there will be a left wing candidate who might well be more useless than Corbyn - e.g. Thornberry.
The Tories have nothing to lose by throwing everything at this - even a close result would be a shocker for Labour. It's almost inconceivable they'd win the seat, but it's not hard to see how even a second challenge to Corbyn could play to their advantage.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine
Maybe it's too early in the morning but that sentence makes no sense to me. It seems to be saying that any form of Brexit *will* damage the country beyond repair. Which is at odds with the rest of your paragraph (which I agree with, with the important difference that I suggest an attempt to over-rule this result and say it is impossible to leave the EU would lead ultimately to war with Europe, which I think anyone sane would be anxious to avoid - therefore Druncker may be aiming for it).
Did you mean 'any'?
Yes. Early morning head + editing post = cocked up logic to say the opposite of what I intended.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine
Maybe it's too early in the morning but that sentence makes no sense to me. It seems to be saying that any form of Brexit *will* damage the country beyond repair. Which is at odds with the rest of your paragraph (which I agree with, with the important difference that I suggest an attempt to over-rule this result and say it is impossible to leave the EU would lead ultimately to war with Europe, which I think anyone sane would be anxious to avoid - therefore Druncker may be aiming for it).
Did you mean 'any'?
Yes. Early morning head + editing post = cocked up logic to say the opposite of what I intended.
Do you think no form of Brexit could lead to Scottish independence or that this outcome would not be damaging to the country?
Meanwhile, someone daft is launching a new legal challenge, this time seemingly upset the Government might not impose deranged and indefensible laws to damage the free press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38396265
One would hope that the High Court will say "the government and parliament have absolute discretion to implement the recommendations of a report as they see fit, other than as bound by existing legislation, or to not implement them; the Court has no power in this area to compel any action."
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 17h17 hours ago Copeland: 60% Leave; 51% Con + UKIP in 2015; lots of pensioners; VERY white. Yeah Labour could be in trouble unless right-wing split vote
In what circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn be challenged again? He's just been given a vote of no confidence by almost the entire Parliamentary party, been challenged and won convincingly.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
In what circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn be challenged again? He's just been given a vote of no confidence by almost the entire Parliamentary party, been challenged and won convincingly.
Quite. Perhaps a loss should lead to serious questions, but there being questions about him has never been the problem, it's that the members continue to see him as the solution regardless. If they want, they will easily cone up with excuses for a loss. More likely is maybe it would dent his confidence and he would consider anointing a new successor, but not sure that's particularly likely even if labour lose, which personally I don't think they will.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine
Maybe it's too early in the morning but that sentence makes no sense to me. It seems to be saying that any form of Brexit *will* damage the country beyond repair. Which is at odds with the rest of your paragraph (which I agree with, with the important difference that I suggest an attempt to over-rule this result and say it is impossible to leave the EU would lead ultimately to war with Europe, which I think anyone sane would be anxious to avoid - therefore Druncker may be aiming for it).
Did you mean 'any'?
Yes. Early morning head + editing post = cocked up logic to say the opposite of what I intended.
Do you think no form of Brexit could lead to Scottish independence or that this outcome would not be damaging to the country?
Clearly some forms of Brexit could be damaging in some ways. But the SNP should not be able to exercise a veto on the process by empty threats. I don't believe they'd win a second referendum but if they wanted to try it, that'd be their call.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
The Tories will play to win.
Whether they will or not is another matter. A lot of the seat is rural and, in the south, it would be comfortably Tory, but cultural and emotional ties to Labour (particularly in the towns) are linked to generations of families and communities and they run very, very deep.
An appalling Labour leader won't necessarily shift that.
Here's a question to which I doubt anybody knows the answer to, but I'll ask it anyway. How do we think Labour and Tory voters in Copeland split in the EU referendum? Do we think they both split about 60:40 in favour of Leave? Or do we think Tories in Copeland were more likely to have voted Leave than the Labour voters?
Meanwhile, someone daft is launching a new legal challenge, this time seemingly upset the Government might not impose deranged and indefensible laws to damage the free press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38396265
Glancing at the story, perhaps I'm missing what the grounds if the challenge are - the way it's written she's angry about the government consulting on whether to go ahead with the second phase of leveson recommendations? Am I missing something, why would the government be obligated to go ahead with them if theyve changed their minds, even if they promised previously to do it? If a referendum isn't legally binding an inquiry recommendation surely isn't, and even if an act currently requires they implement phase 2 they could always decide to repeal. What's the legal case?
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
Meanwhile, someone daft is launching a new legal challenge, this time seemingly upset the Government might not impose deranged and indefensible laws to damage the free press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38396265
One would hope that the High Court will say "the government and parliament have absolute discretion to implement the recommendations of a report as they see fit, other than as bound by existing legislation, or to not implement them; the Court has no power in this area to compel any action."
It's hard to imagine how somebody could come up with the idea of making newspapers reimburse the costs of vexatious litigants without that person being a fool or a knave.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
The Tories will play to win.
Whether they will or not is another matter. A lot of the seat is rural and, in the south, it would be comfortably Tory, but cultural and emotional ties to Labour (particularly in the towns) are linked to generations of families and communities and they run very, very deep.
An appalling Labour leader won't necessarily shift that.
Cultural and emotional ties to Labour were strong in areas like Glasgow as well. An increasing disconnect between Labour and the people in those areas, along with scandals such as Falkirk, led to the results we saw last year.
Though the Scottish Independence referendum obviously played its part as well, as did the relative professionalism of the SNP.
A result I got very wrong, as I had assumed that those ties would, at a GE, prevent the rout the polls and by-elections were indicating.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
No need to. Just a few sweeteners should do. They could 'Bring back the noose'
That should keep the Brexiteers happy for a while.
While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
You seem to imply that Scotland right now has more sovereignty as part of the UK, than Ireland has within the EU. Do you believe this?
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters."
Actually I believe it has dropped below 50%....
Roger might want to consider this: The way that Margaret Thatcher kept the death penalty abolished was by allowing frequent, free votes in the HoC about it. She recognised that, in a democracy, having a vote is how you win.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters."
Actually I believe it has dropped below 50%....
Roger might want to consider this: The way that Margaret Thatcher kept the death penalty abolished was by allowing frequent, free votes in the HoC about it. She recognised that, in a democracy, having a vote is how you win.
I said 'around' half, which allows for variance above and below, the point was it's still popular with so many that it won't be a purely leaver issue.
Mr. kle4, no idea. I think the legal case is that people who dislike what the Government is/isn't doing just take them to court to try and get their way through the judicial rather than political system.
It's perfectly reasonable, nay, essential, that people be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of government action. Sure it can be frustrating, but the alternative, where a government could act contrary to the law without challenge, is insane. But as a lay person the write up really does look like 'the government might not do what I want' and that's it. Even though that may be the motivation of many challenges, the question still needs to be framed as a matter of law, since it's not for the court to say if something is a good idea, merely whether legally it could be done. Manifesto commitments are not enforceable for instance since if a party wants to mislead or is forced to u-turn its for the public to judge that.
But in this case, just what is the legal basis of the challenge to the consultation ? I read the BBC article, and a couple of the ones it linked to, and was unable to work it out. I get that the challengers feel the government is acting in bad faith, but if that were sufficient basis, we'd need a bigger court system.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
This is must win for Labour, who must throw the kitchen sink at it.
The interesting question is what will May do? What is worth more - an extra commons vote or Corbyn secure in post?
Morning all,
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
The Tories will play to win.
Whether they will or not is another matter. A lot of the seat is rural and, in the south, it would be comfortably Tory, but cultural and emotional ties to Labour (particularly in the towns) are linked to generations of families and communities and they run very, very deep.
An appalling Labour leader won't necessarily shift that.
An appalling Labour leader might be enough to keep 15% of the Lab vote at home on a cold winter's day though, and that might be all the Tories need.
This is what we've all wanted for ages, a genuinely tight Lab/Con by-election!
It's hard to imagine how somebody could come up with the idea of making newspapers reimburse the costs of vexatious litigants without that person being a fool or a knave.
Newspapers would be able to return to the normal rule on costs if they so choose. They're not without options.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I am not getting mad at anyone. Nor do I prescribe how someone should feel. I was expressing my view. Shopping is not some sort of human right which overrides every other consideration.
Personally I find the endless processions of people laying candles, the "Je suis Berlin" hash tags etc tiresome because they are sentiment unaccompanied by any real pressure on the authorities to take effective action, not just to catch the perpetrators after the event but to be much more clear headed about the preventative measures which ought to be taken, one of which is not to let people into a country in an uncontrolled manner without any effective checks.
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters. "
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
I didn't mention Ireland at all. However, I suspect they are going to find life (sadly for them) increasingly awkward, as the EU starts to integrate further (as it must to survive - one of my reasons for voting out was that the "status quo", won't last), and it faces up to the fact it has about 1% of the EU's population.
"Apple tax harmonisation" is a foretaste of what's coming down the track, and the painful irony is that there will be no big ugly UK to quietly hide behind to stop this sort of thing, whilst burnishing their European credentials in public. Maybe that's what they want, I don't know I'm not Irish, and if so fair enough, but integration is going to mean less and less influence just because you've got a flag. Ultimately Scotland and Ireland add up to less than Baden Wuettemberg between them in terms of economic heft and population.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
Oh I heartily agree. Histrionic sentimentality on steroids accompanied by a sort of emotional bullying. Ghastly.
"Here's a question to which I doubt anybody knows the answer to, but I'll ask it anyway. How do we think Labour and Tory voters in Copeland split in the EU referendum? Do we think they both split about 60:40 in favour of Leave? Or do we think Tories in Copeland were more likely to have voted Leave than the Labour voters?"
Lets not go there as we would lose. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the Brexiteers).
The many voted to leave remember ?
No, as far as I am concerned 48% voted to remain in the EU and there were 50 shades of grey that voted against. I have friends telling me that they had voted no solely to give the government a 'warning shot' not expecting them to lose. So until there is a single coherent, costed, proposal put to the country in a General Election (by the Conservatives as they currently hold the poison challis) that supports leaving the EU you can assume I don't consider the referendum a binding commitment on anybody.
There were 50 shades of grey amongst those who voted remain as well.
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
I agree. Brexit means Brexit after all.
I don't expect Brexit to deliver a fraction of what was promised, but disappointment and disillusionment with broken promises are pretty fundamental to democracy.
*Sigh* you don't get it still. Brexit will not 'deliver' anything, barring some fishing rights. All it is is an open door. It is Britain that will succeed or fail (then learn and succeed) That's the point.
The polling on the death penalty suggests that its re-introduction is in general opposed, 55 to 45%, but when asked if they would support it for child rapists/mass murderers those percentages reverse (or more).
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
But how can we show respect for the dead without lighting up national monuments and Facebook profile pictures in the colours of the flag?
"In what circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn be challenged again? He's just been given a vote of no confidence by almost the entire Parliamentary party, been challenged and won convincingly."
I don't think he'll be challenged. He'll go. It's clear that Labour is in a holding pattern right now. The far left cannot take control of the party machine as things stand because they do not have the votes on the NEC and are unlikely to get them, while MPs cannot mount a new bid to oust him because the membership will not accept that.
However, as Corbyn's total unelectability becomes ever-more apparent, current support will drift away. Indeed, it is already happening - current endorsements are now coming with time limits. The drift will not be to the centre but to someone else on the left with less baggage, more interest in unity and greater willingness to engage with ordinary voters. At some point the unions will make Corbyn an offer he cannot refuse. And that will be that. It really is only a matter of when. A heavy defeat at Copeland - where there can be absolutely no excuses for failure - will hasten the day somewhat.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
Mortality applying as inexorably to royalty as anyone else (superior private health care notwithstanding), I think sooner or later you'll be surprised at just how much a taste there is for national mourning. I predict a tabloid-fuelled orgy of it.
If Labour pick a local trade unionist, Brexit and pro-nuclear they will win. How many of that sort of person remain after the winds of NewLabour and Momentum have blown through the party?
Did not the Lord Advocate submit that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted the other week in the Brexit court case. Consult is not veto sure, but I seems to recall Ms Sturgeon (and Ms Wood in Wales I think) claiming over the Summer there should be some sort of four nation lock on the process? Hogwash: we voted as a UK on an international matter.
It's as clear as a pikestaff that they are doing all they can in Edinburgh to assert Scotland's view in all of this (fair enough - no issue there), and trying to give the impression that Scotland has more power than it does here. Dangling the "threat" of independence if they don't get something to their satisfaction, is the source of that power such as it is. Again no issue per se, it's just I'm not having it as a brake on the rest of us. We voted out down here but a good clear margin without Scotland, we won't be stopped by Scotland, if that has consequences, then that's sad, but fair enough.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
'Adam Tomkins, leading constitutional law expert and newly elected Conservative MSP, made the point that Sturgeon’s words should be interpreted carefully, given that there was a huge difference between withholding consent and having a veto.'
"In what circumstances could Jeremy Corbyn be challenged again? He's just been given a vote of no confidence by almost the entire Parliamentary party, been challenged and won convincingly."
I don't think he'll be challenged. He'll go. It's clear that Labour is in a holding pattern right now. The far left cannot take control of the party machine as things stand because they do not have the votes on the NEC and are unlikely to get them, while MPs cannot mount a new bid to oust him because the membership will not accept that.
However, as Corbyn's total unelectability becomes ever-more apparent, current support will drift away. Indeed, it is already happening - current endorsements are now coming with time limits. The drift will not be to the centre but to someone else on the left with less baggage, more interest in unity and greater willingness to engage with ordinary voters. At some point the unions will make Corbyn an offer he cannot refuse. And that will be that. It really is only a matter of when. A heavy defeat at Copeland - where there can be absolutely no excuses for failure - will hasten the day somewhat.
That feels like wishful thinking to me from a long suffering centrist Labour supporter. The left and Corbyn will want their day in the sun which means they will, by whatever means necessary, hold on until 2020. After that all bets are off, but I don't see Corbyn giving up the leadership before the election.
I just want to respond to @foxinsoxuk's comment that one should continue shopping to show a stiff upper lip etc.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
I have to side with fox on this one. There is nothing wrong in your view, but human beings are fantastic at weathering tragedy and yet carrying on seemingly at normal, that people choose not to more obviously display their feelings on the matter does not mean they are not sympathetic or reflective, and the sad fact is this world, even close to home, is full of unaccountable sadness and horror, and getting mad at people for not showing sufficient upset is unfair, for how much should they for this, or the next tragedy, or for the thousands that happen daily we don't hear about?
I'm always quite pleased that we don't go in for the "days of national mourning" one sees in other countries. The St. Diana effect was more than enough for any rational, sentient being.
Couldn't agree more. The London, July 2005 response was the best - F. You you terrorist scumbags, we will carry on doing just what we do.
"Oh I heartily agree. Histrionic sentimentality on steroids accompanied by a sort of emotional bullying. Ghastly."
The use of "On Steroids" imported from the US during their election should be nipped in the bud before it follows the even less attractive 'WTF' and becomes endemic on PB.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
Can you point out an occasion post the Brexit vote when Sturgeon has said that Scotland should have a veto over England and Wales leaving the EU? I know hacks on the Telegraph, Mail et al (and even some less dumb commentators) are forever having prolapses over the 'v' word, but that's not the same thing.
'Adam Tomkins, leading constitutional law expert and newly elected Conservative MSP, made the point that Sturgeon’s words should be interpreted carefully, given that there was a huge difference between withholding consent and having a veto.'
Except of course that is not what she was saying. She was explicitly saying that the Scottish Parliament could block Brexit. As she repeated in this article
Did not the Lord Advocate submit that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted the other week in the Brexit court case. Consult is not veto sure, but I seems to recall Ms Sturgeon (and Ms Wood in Wales I think) claiming over the Summer there should be some sort of four nation lock on the process? Hogwash: we voted as a UK on an international matter.
It's as clear as a pikestaff that they are doing all they can in Edinburgh to assert Scotland's view in all of this (fair enough - no issue there), and trying to give the impression that Scotland has more power than it does here. Dangling the "threat" of independence if they don't get something to their satisfaction, is the source of that power such as it is. Again no issue per se, it's just I'm not having it as a brake on the rest of us. We voted out down here but a good clear margin without Scotland, we won't be stopped by Scotland, if that has consequences, then that's sad, but fair enough.
You missed my 'post the Brexit vote' bit. Yep, despite constant cries from Unionists about the equal partnership of the Union, the four nation lock thing was never going to be a goer. However at that point even the sharp minds of PB were predicting remain, and all along Sturgeon has been giving the impression of actually exploring all avenues rather than paying barely formed lip service to the idea.
Comments
In my mind the one unknown is the local mayor - what was his platform, and is there a chance that he - or one of his supporters - could upset the apple cart?
For women, economic inactivity was highest amongst the Arab (64%) Bangladeshi (61%), Pakistani (60%) or Gypsy or Irish Travellers (60%) groups.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandthelabourmarket2011censusenglandandwales/2014-11-13#differences-in-labour-market-participation-by-gender
The referendum happened, the result was clear by more than a million votes.
The government will now implement the result as best they can, and the people can decide at the next election whether they continue to support the government or would prefer to see different people in charge.
That's democracy isn't it?
Presumably war would be hard as nails Brexit...
I also don't consider the referendum a *binding* commitment. However, I cannot see how anything will be gained - and that much will be lost - if the government were to ignore it. Like it or not, the people voted against remaining in the EU. That vote should be respected.
"Should the Germans cancel Christmas because of a murderous nutter? "
I find it most interesting that a Muslim that intentionally drives a 40 tonne Steel laden wagon at 40mph through innocent shoppers at a Christmas market killing 12 and injuring many is simply described as a "murderous nutter", isolated, with no connection inferred or made whatsoever to others of similar faith........
Yet ........ when an MP is horrifically murdered in the course of her duties during a democratic referendum by not only a "murderous nutter" but also a proven deranged one, the responsibility was consistently laid at the door of every leaver as if we were all guilty of this heinous crime and at one point contributory to the act and even extremists ourselves.
Most Enlightening.
I don't expect Brexit to deliver a fraction of what was promised, but disappointment and disillusionment with broken promises are pretty fundamental to democracy.
And also a reminder of why the government is so keen to avoid damaging our automotive industry.
They were behind the process, expected to win and took that for granted. However they lost. The rest then followed........
it's not democracy it's just utter, total undiluted hypocrisy.
That way lies at the minimum, severe political disturbance and at worst - if combined with a recession, unemployment and terrorist attacks, for example - quite possibly widescale violence and the election or installation of a non-democratic government.
Besides, the idea that no form of Brexit could damage the country beyond repair is moonshine and the sort of twaddle that is pushed by some would-be opinion-formers (without evidence; indeed, in the face of available evidence), that leads people to suspect that the governing class must have an ulterior motive given that their arguments make no sense on their own merits.
Well said. Quite right.
Not Brexiting holes the political process below the waterline. "Why bother with voting - it doesn't work?" Frustrations would be vented by other means I fear.
Did you mean 'any'?
You may have missed all my posts over the years emphasising liberal values over socially conservative Islamist ones.
The Jo Cox killer was found guilty in a British court, which could have found diminished responsibility by reason of insanity, but did not. Bad not Mad.
Brexit is going to happen for a whole number of reasons, but primarily because the government will get crucified at the next election if it doesn't!
Are those in favour of ignoring the referendum result also in favour of UKIP being at worst the Opposition in the next Parliament? Because that's what will happen if Brexit doesn't.
Having promised freedom, democracy, peace, plenty and prosperity for all while delivering mass unemployment, austerity, the imposition of undemocratic government to meet bailout terms, huge gaps between rich and poor and not least the world's highest food prices, they have a poor track record on such things.
Of course Brexit will fail to live up to the promises. But the EU's broken promises seem pretty serious as well,
Why the people back the Taliban over the police.
The German police are looking more and more farcical, as the story unfolds about the Berlin atrocity. Increasingly, it seems that the whole European establishment didn't have a clue about the implications of throwing open the borders. What a joke the project is
I don't know how salient the EU vote will be. I'd still make Labour the favourite in by-election conditions.
It's hard to imagine how somebody could come up with the idea of making newspapers reimburse the costs of vexatious litigants without that person being a fool or a knave.
I think this is a good point. Will the Tories hold back enough to not win and secure Jezza. A loss would start serious questions again for the anointed one, especially if his leadership comes up on the doorstep.
Mr. Borough, May needs some good news of her own after Goldsmith's performance.
1) Especially after Richmond, they need to show they are serious about fighting for every seat;
2) Although Corbyn should go in the unlikely event Labour lose (which would be a serious upset cum disaster) he won't go voluntarily and removing him, even if it were possible, would be an extremely nasty, very public fight which would show Labour in the worst possible light and leave them at least as divided as they are now afterwards, possibly with quite a lot of the core vote defecting or staying at home. Remember, there will be a left wing candidate who might well be more useless than Corbyn - e.g. Thornberry.
The Tories have nothing to lose by throwing everything at this - even a close result would be a shocker for Labour. It's almost inconceivable they'd win the seat, but it's not hard to see how even a second challenge to Corbyn could play to their advantage.
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 17h17 hours ago
Copeland: 60% Leave; 51% Con + UKIP in 2015; lots of pensioners; VERY white. Yeah Labour could be in trouble unless right-wing split vote
Whether they will or not is another matter. A lot of the seat is rural and, in the south, it would be comfortably Tory, but cultural and emotional ties to Labour (particularly in the towns) are linked to generations of families and communities and they run very, very deep.
An appalling Labour leader won't necessarily shift that.
" Noone could deliver what Brexit promised. "
No need to. Just a few sweeteners should do. They could 'Bring back the noose'
That should keep the Brexiteers happy for a while.
Now you're just being nostalgic.
I agree that life should go on. But I was trying to make the point that there are more important things than shopping. People being brutally murdered, the grief and pain that those left behind must be suffering now should command our sympathy and perhaps a pause in what seems like an unthinking focus on consumerism. There is a human element here and it would be as well to remember it. This is not "mawkish sentimentality" or "histrionics". It is simply, to me anyway, a reflection that life is precious and more important than the opportunity to buy tat.
Though the Scottish Independence referendum obviously played its part as well, as did the relative professionalism of the SNP.
A result I got very wrong, as I had assumed that those ties would, at a GE, prevent the rout the polls and by-elections were indicating.
If Scotland "threatens" independence - so be it. I am not having the tail of 8% wag the dog of the rest of the country as it is currently constituted. I do not wish to see Scotland go, nor to hound it out, but I accept it has a right to choose. What it does not have the right to do is pretend its 5M have got some kind of veto over the 58/59M in England and Wales who clearly voted out.
If it wants to become 1% in a union of 445 odd million, well crack on and become a province of Brussels, and see what influence you get (apart from being the pet Dachshund of Brussels to taunt rUK with I am sure).
The trebuchet, space cannon and solar death ray mark the way forward!
Actually I believe it has dropped below 50%....
Roger might want to consider this: The way that Margaret Thatcher kept the death penalty abolished was by allowing frequent, free votes in the HoC about it. She recognised that, in a democracy, having a vote is how you win.
I get that the challengers feel the government is acting in bad faith, but if that were sufficient basis, we'd need a bigger court system.
This is what we've all wanted for ages, a genuinely tight Lab/Con by-election!
Personally I find the endless processions of people laying candles, the "Je suis Berlin" hash tags etc tiresome because they are sentiment unaccompanied by any real pressure on the authorities to take effective action, not just to catch the perpetrators after the event but to be much more clear headed about the preventative measures which ought to be taken, one of which is not to let people into a country in an uncontrolled manner without any effective checks.
"While I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe its return is generally supported when the question is asked by around half the country. It isn't the province of reactionary extremists or, given how many express wanting it back, likely to be supported only by brexiters. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I didn't mention Ireland at all. However, I suspect they are going to find life (sadly for them) increasingly awkward, as the EU starts to integrate further (as it must to survive - one of my reasons for voting out was that the "status quo", won't last), and it faces up to the fact it has about 1% of the EU's population.
"Apple tax harmonisation" is a foretaste of what's coming down the track, and the painful irony is that there will be no big ugly UK to quietly hide behind to stop this sort of thing, whilst burnishing their European credentials in public. Maybe that's what they want, I don't know I'm not Irish, and if so fair enough, but integration is going to mean less and less influence just because you've got a flag. Ultimately Scotland and Ireland add up to less than Baden Wuettemberg between them in terms of economic heft and population.
Not much difference in this constituency IMO.
I don't think he'll be challenged. He'll go. It's clear that Labour is in a holding pattern right now. The far left cannot take control of the party machine as things stand because they do not have the votes on the NEC and are unlikely to get them, while MPs cannot mount a new bid to oust him because the membership will not accept that.
However, as Corbyn's total unelectability becomes ever-more apparent, current support will drift away. Indeed, it is already happening - current endorsements are now coming with time limits. The drift will not be to the centre but to someone else on the left with less baggage, more interest in unity and greater willingness to engage with ordinary voters. At some point the unions will make Corbyn an offer he cannot refuse. And that will be that. It really is only a matter of when. A heavy defeat at Copeland - where there can be absolutely no excuses for failure - will hasten the day somewhat.
Did not the Lord Advocate submit that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted the other week in the Brexit court case. Consult is not veto sure, but I seems to recall Ms Sturgeon (and Ms Wood in Wales I think) claiming over the Summer there should be some sort of four nation lock on the process? Hogwash: we voted as a UK on an international matter.
It's as clear as a pikestaff that they are doing all they can in Edinburgh to assert Scotland's view in all of this (fair enough - no issue there), and trying to give the impression that Scotland has more power than it does here. Dangling the "threat" of independence if they don't get something to their satisfaction, is the source of that power such as it is. Again no issue per se, it's just I'm not having it as a brake on the rest of us. We voted out down here but a good clear margin without Scotland, we won't be stopped by Scotland, if that has consequences, then that's sad, but fair enough.
https://twitter.com/thedailymash/status/811866800057098240
"Oh I heartily agree. Histrionic sentimentality on steroids accompanied by a sort of emotional bullying. Ghastly."
The use of "On Steroids" imported from the US during their election should be nipped in the bud before it follows the even less attractive 'WTF' and becomes endemic on PB.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-eu-uk-theresa-may-scottish-veto-block-withdrawal-a7141231.html
Note neither of these are from the right wing press.
Yep, despite constant cries from Unionists about the equal partnership of the Union, the four nation lock thing was never going to be a goer. However at that point even the sharp minds of PB were predicting remain, and all along Sturgeon has been giving the impression of actually exploring all avenues rather than paying barely formed lip service to the idea.