If I had a sofa, I would be watching the joint presser from behind it. As it is, I think I'm going to have to watch it with subtitles only. I'm already cringing in anticipation.
So it's bye-bye Fillon. Big smiles in the Kremlin and the White House!
What I don't get is why people set so much stock by poll results on how people would vote in the run-off round given a choice between two specified candidates, e.g. 54% Macron to 46% Fillon in a recent poll. Most of both the 54% and the 46% have no particular loyalty either to the candidate or to his organisation - in Fillon's case a political party, in Macron's an electoral vehicle named to have the same initials as his and an outstandingly stupid logo. Not that I'm saying Fillon would beat him. Opinions on that are anyway of little import given that the second round, if one is held, is unlikely to be between those two contenders. But if someone wants to insist on going by those poll results, qualitative considerations suggest that they should assume an enormous margin of error, at least +/- 10% of the total.
No it isn't no new voting intention polls and so he remains runner up in round 1 and headed for run off with Le Pen
We clearly view polls very differently, if you believe that the absence of new polls means that a candidate's chances remain the same as they were in the most recent polls available. What about Penelopegate? Or an appraisal of Edward Snowden's pitching in? Or indeed any other qualitative considerations?
If I had a sofa, I would be watching the joint presser from behind it. As it is, I think I'm going to have to watch it with subtitles only. I'm already cringing in anticipation.
What’s that 6pm UK time. Just in time for our evening news.
FPT Good to see some previous critics coming round to Mrs May - of course we've still got the Trump press conference to go - and she's on a jolly sticky wicket, but I for one have been sleeping more soundly since she took office.
On her deliberative style, as she is reported to have remarked "I don't mind if people think I'm thick....for a while"
Give it a day or two and we will have confirmation that all the bending over and genuflection was in vain.
Has Nicola been grovelling to obscure Eurocrats again?
I see you have no reply, hope her skint knees are worth it
So it's bye-bye Fillon. Big smiles in the Kremlin and the White House!
What I don't get is why people set so much stock by poll results on how people would vote in the run-off round given a choice between two specified candidates, e.g. 54% Macron to 46% Fillon in a recent poll. Most of both the 54% and the 46% have no particular loyalty either to the candidate or to his organisation - in Fillon's case a political party, in Macron's an electoral vehicle named to have the same initials as his and an outstandingly stupid logo. Not that I'm saying Fillon would beat him. Opinions on that are anyway of little import given that the second round, if one is held, is unlikely to be between those two contenders. But if someone wants to insist on going by those poll results, qualitative considerations suggest that they should assume an enormous margin of error, at least +/- 10% of the total.
No it isn't no new voting intention polls and so he remains runner up in round 1 and headed for run off with Le Pen
We clearly view polls very differently, if you believe that the absence of new polls means that a candidate's chances remain the same as they were in the most recent polls available. What about Penelopegate? Or an appraisal of Edward Snowden's pitching in? Or indeed any other qualitative considerations?
What about them? All we have is 1 approval rating of Fillon which is slightly down but not much different from December and Macron also facing some controversy and no new voting intention polling. Most likely the gap between Fillon and Macron has narrowed and Le Pen maybe has increased her first round lead but Fillon is certainly not out. I also expect the Kremlin and White House would far prefer Fillon to the present incumbent of the Elysee!
WRT mass killing, in terms of percentages of the world's population, I should think Genghis Khan holds the record. And, it was all done by hand.
On a slightly brighter note, as has been discussed on here before: who has saved the most lives? Fleming and penicillin?
My personal bet is on John Snow. How many people have been saved around the world by the discovery that diseases such as cholera are water-borne, and that clean water supplies are vital?
Fleming as he himself admitted just made a brief note about the existence and effect of some mould in a petri dish, and filed it away. Howard Florey should get the credit (which to somextent he did, what with a peerage and a Nobel prize).
WRT mass killing, in terms of percentages of the world's population, I should think Genghis Khan holds the record. And, it was all done by hand.
On a slightly brighter note, as has been discussed on here before: who has saved the most lives? Fleming and penicillin?
My personal bet is on John Snow. How many people have been saved around the world by the discovery that diseases such as cholera are water-borne, and that clean water supplies are vital?
Fleming as he himself admitted just made a brief note about the existence and effect of some mould in a petri dish, and filed it away. Howard Florey should get the credit (which to somextent he did, what with a peerage and a Nobel prize).
Outside the Madrid bullring there is a statue of a matador saluting Dr Fleming. Penicillin changed the bullfight. Gorings rarely killed toreros, instead it was the infections that gorings led to that did the damage. Deaths in the ring are now very rare - though a matador was killed last year. A lot of Spanish cities have streets named after Fleming, too.
"My guess is that with a decent candidate, a quiescent Ukip and a split vote, Labour will just about hold Stoke. And the Tories will gain Copeland, again benefiting from an increased Lib Dem vote. How perverse will that be?"
I think this is alot more likely than the bunkum the Sun, and some of his Speccie chums have been putting about.
I'm still looking at that bloody colourised Holocaust photo
Jesus.
For all that we say 'we will remember', the reality is that we don't really want to. We remember the event, the organisation, the clinical cruelty, the artefacts of bureaucracy, the Arbeit Macht Frei sign and the chimneys but remember the six million dead? Sure - that's a statistic. Six million lives of real people who lived, loved, feared, hoped, sang, worked and so on? No, just too horrible.
Genocide is nearly always unpopular after the event; preventing it beforehand - when it had genuine support, as such things must by definition have, even if out of only falsely-grounded mass hysteria - another matter. Remembering means nothing if not applied to the future, and future applications will be, as they always are, against marginalised and unpopular groups which are strong enough to constitute a perceived threat, weak enough to be taken on, and 'other' enough to be identifiably alien. Siding with such groups, which are rarely targeted without some reason that can be sold in a poster slogan or a two-second soundbite, takes bravery.
I think it's slightly unfair to imply (unless I've misunderstood you) that genocide had popular support in pre war Germany; oppression, confiscation of property, deportation, forced migration, 'resettlement' yes, the driving of children into execution pits and gas chambers no. The evil genius of the Nazis was to persuade the German population of the value of all those steps towards the Holocaust while successfully concealing the final destination, or helping the populace to conceal it from themselves. Afaics a very large number of Germans were able to persuade themselves both during and after the war that they had no conscious knowledge of what was happening 'in the east'.
It is also worth remembering that the Nazis dealt swiftly and very effectively with any opposition in Germany long before either the outbreak of war or the start of the Holocaust. Within 2 months of Hitler coming to power in 1933 he had sent 27,000 political and intellectual opponents to concentration and forced labour camps. Hundreds of thousands were eliminated in the 1930s either by imprisonment or execution. The population of Germany would have been thoroughly cowed by the loss of the whole intellectual opposition to Hitler by the time he invaded Poland.
Only 2% up on 2012 though, on same national swing SNP would be on just 34% in May
-4 for the Union, +2 for Indy. Steady as she goes.
What are your predictions for the Scottish locals in May? Lab to lose their last 4 councils? Any pickups by the SNp or Cons?
Nothing specific apart from the not very startling prediction that SLab is getting reamed in Glasgow; SCons will almost definitely add to their current tally of 1 councilor there. SNP will pick up councillors, Scons also, LDs maybe a few. It's all about Red, White & Blue Labour voters turning to the nearest Unionist alternative, and Reddish Labour voters sticking with it or going Green or SNP. I think SLab still have 5 councils, there's a chance they may all go NOC or SNP. SLab & SCon will be more willing to work together in NOC councils, but not sure if the SCons will have enough seats to be a factor in the current SLab controlled councils.
It would be an enlightening pb poll if we were to guess on the Conservatives' vote share in the Copeland by-election.
I'll go 32 % :>
I can easily imagine something like
Labour 36% Con 31% UKIP 18% Lib Dem 12% Others 3%
For Labour to lose the Conservatives either need to improve their vote share or to see Labour collapse further than they do. The former doesn't look particularly likely, given that it hasn't happened in any by-election since the Conservatives entered government in 2010.
It would be an enlightening pb poll if we were to guess on the Conservatives' vote share in the Copeland by-election.
I'll go 32 % :>
I can easily imagine something like
Labour 36% Con 31% UKIP 18% Lib Dem 12% Others 3%
For Labour to lose the Conservatives either need to improve their vote share or to see Labour collapse further than they do. The former doesn't look particularly likely, given that it hasn't happened in any by-election since the Conservatives entered government in 2010.
But evidently lots of gamblers feel differently.
Looks a reasonable guess to me, except that I think you have UKIP a little too high.
I'm still looking at that bloody colourised Holocaust photo
Jesus.
For all that we say 'we will remember', the reality is that we don't really want to. We remember the event, the organisation, the clinical cruelty, the artefacts of bureaucracy, the Arbeit Macht Frei sign and the chimneys but remember the six million dead? Sure - that's a statistic. Six million lives of real people who lived, loved, feared, hoped, sang, worked and so on? No, just too horrible.
Genocide is nearly always unpopular after the event; preventing it beforehand - when it had genuine support, as such things must by definition have, even if out of only falsely-grounded mass hysteria - another matter. Remembering means nothing if not applied to the future, and future applications will be, as they always are, against marginalised and unpopular groups which are strong enough to constitute a perceived threat, weak enough to be taken on, and 'other' enough to be identifiably alien. Siding with such groups, which are rarely targeted without some reason that can be sold in a poster slogan or a two-second soundbite, takes bravery.
I think it's slightly unfair to imply (unless I've misunderstood you) that genocide had popular support in pre war Germany; oppression, confiscation of property, deportation, forced migration, 'resettlement' yes, the driving of children into execution pits and gas chambers no. The evil genius of the Nazis was to persuade the German population of the value of all those steps towards the Holocaust while successfully concealing the final destination, or helping the populace to conceal it from themselves. Afaics a very large number of Germans were able to persuade themselves both during and after the war that they had no conscious knowledge of what was happening 'in the east'.
It is also worth remembering that the Nazis dealt swiftly and very effectively with any opposition in Germany long before either the outbreak of war or the start of the Holocaust. Within 2 months of Hitler coming to power in 1933 he had sent 27,000 political and intellectual opponents to concentration and forced labour camps. Hundreds of thousands were eliminated in the 1930s either by imprisonment or execution. The population of Germany would have been thoroughly cowed by the loss of the whole intellectual opposition to Hitler by the time he invaded Poland.
I hesitate because it's a harrowing novel, but "The Kindly Ones" is well worth reading, at the cost of the odd sleepless night.
I've thought a good deal about the Holocaust over the years, and wonder what I would have actually _done_ had I been (say) an Oberleutnant in the Heer. Lest we forget, Hitler had no compunction about executing members of his own armed forces.
And on that topic, here's a tweet storm from Rob Ford:
A fine little essay by Rob. He makes some very good points. (Lord only knows why he thinks Twitter is the right medium in which to publish it, though!)
@LOS_Fisher: Jo Stevens quits shadow cabinet over 3-line whip on Article 50 Bill. Interestingly, she was 1 of the few frontbenchers not to quit last June
These Labour refuseniks really are masters (or in most cases mistresses) of the most tortuous forms of mental gymnastics. How can Jo Stevens say she accepts the referendum result and in the same breath say she'll vote against implementing it? Either you accept it or you don't. You can't accept it whilst simultaneously voting to stop it.
Even Diane Abbott seems to get it:
“You have to remember how this looks to people in post-industrial Britain, former mining areas, the north, the Midlands, south Wales – it would look as if elites were refusing to listen to them.
It would be wrong. How could MPs vote for a referendum and then turn around and say: it went the wrong way so we are ignoring it?”
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
I prefer the solitary splendours of the Black Mountains and the gentle country of the Olchon valley. Each to their own Sean. Namaste.
These Labour refuseniks really are masters (or in most cases mistresses) of the most tortuous forms of mental gymnastics. How can Jo Stevens say she accepts the referendum result and in the same breath say she'll vote against implementing it? Either you accept it or you don't. You can't accept it whilst simultaneously voting to stop it.
Even Diane Abbott seems to get it:
“You have to remember how this looks to people in post-industrial Britain, former mining areas, the north, the Midlands, south Wales – it would look as if elites were refusing to listen to them.
It would be wrong. How could MPs vote for a referendum and then turn around and say: it went the wrong way so we are ignoring it?”
There are plenty on here who don't think that would be wrong!
The problem with what she is saying is that she doesn't mean it. She, Corbyn and McDonnell have rumbled that ignoring the result would probably get them beat in both by elections, & possibly be the death of the Labour Party, so they're saying what they have to say.
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
You’re right. Temperature should be remind one of the UK on a perfect June day. And you’re not far from Above Eleven, where they sell the only beer I’m unable to drink!
@LOS_Fisher: Jo Stevens quits shadow cabinet over 3-line whip on Article 50 Bill. Interestingly, she was 1 of the few frontbenchers not to quit last June
There are plenty on here who don't think that would be wrong!
Yeah, but they weren't MPs who voted for the referendum.
I can see how you could take the view that the referendum was a mistake, should never have been called, and then quite consistently say you don't accept the result. What I don't see is how you can have supported the referendum and now refuse to accept the result.
These Labour refuseniks really are masters (or in most cases mistresses) of the most tortuous forms of mental gymnastics. How can Jo Stevens say she accepts the referendum result and in the same breath say she'll vote against implementing it? Either you accept it or you don't. You can't accept it whilst simultaneously voting to stop it.
Even Diane Abbott seems to get it:
“You have to remember how this looks to people in post-industrial Britain, former mining areas, the north, the Midlands, south Wales – it would look as if elites were refusing to listen to them.
It would be wrong. How could MPs vote for a referendum and then turn around and say: it went the wrong way so we are ignoring it?”
There are number of arguments they can reasonably make.
1) They are reflecting the will of their (Remain) constituency. 2) The facts have materially changed since the vote (Trump) and we need to take another look. 3) Personal conscience.
There are number of arguments they can reasonably make.
1) They are reflecting the will of their (Remain) constituency. 2) The facts have materially changed since the vote (Trump) and we need to take another look. 3) Personal conscience.
'Personal conscience' doesn't work, unless they voted against the referendum bill.
Nor for that matter does the result in their own constituency; if that was their view, again they should have voted against the referendum, on the basis that the decision should be taken by parliament. That would be a perfectly respectable view, just one that's not compatible with having voted for the referendum to happen.
There are plenty on here who don't think that would be wrong!
Yeah, but they weren't MPs who voted for the referendum.
I can see how you could take the view that the referendum was a mistake, should never have been called, and then quite consistently say you don't accept the result. What I don't see is how you can have supported the referendum and now refuse to accept the result.
Because they were too arrogant to think they'd lose. You're right that logical and moral consistency should make that position impossible, but these are Labour MPs we are talking about, they've been selling their supporters down the river for decades
Sounds perfect Sean - apart from the fried cockroaches! Have you e ver partaken? Not sure I could bring myself to.
I have. I once had to eat all the weirdest foods in S E Asia for a magazine piece. Fried cockroaches were easy. Salty, crunchy, earthy, mildly unpleasant. But not emetic.
But dried frog, duck fetus in egg, big grasshoppers, roast tarantula... Ugh.
Had deep fried frog when we there in November. Little tiny ones. Delicious. Fried grasshoppers not; legs got in the way!
Shadsy has suspended betting on the Tories winning both Copeland and Stoke double.
(Or has it been long suspended?)
Edit - Which is an arse, as that's what I was planning to do one of Sunday's threads on.
Betfair have added this, it might be liquid by Sunday. Particularly if PB'ers help.
I'd have thought it should be pretty much identical to the Stoke odds for the Tories.
I mean what do you make
P (Tories win Stoke, Don't win Copeland)
That probability has to be utterly tiny.
Think TSE may have meant Lab/Lab? Selecting a 25-year-old as your candidate is a pretty effective signal to the electorate (no offence to the guy, whom I don't know and may well be excellent).
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
I prefer the solitary splendours of the Black Mountains and the gentle country of the Olchon valley. Each to their own Sean. Namaste.
I know the Olchon Valley and Black Mts very well! I grew up in Herefordshire.
The beauties of Craswall Abbey and Capel-y-Ffin are great indeed. But not so much in January. Rather be in Bangkok.
I'm sure it's warmer - which would be nice. However, I've found that, since I lost Jenny, I can't abide crowds of people. I'm probably lucky to have my dogs, otherwise I might go all Hikikomori. Cities. Ugh.
Are you able to tell us more about your thriller? Thought of a name?
Shadsy has suspended betting on the Tories winning both Copeland and Stoke double.
(Or has it been long suspended?)
Edit - Which is an arse, as that's what I was planning to do one of Sunday's threads on.
Betfair have added this, it might be liquid by Sunday. Particularly if PB'ers help.
I'd have thought it should be pretty much identical to the Stoke odds for the Tories.
I mean what do you make
P (Tories win Stoke, Don't win Copeland)
That probability has to be utterly tiny.
Think TSE may have meant Lab/Lab? Selecting a 25-year-old as your candidate is a pretty effective signal to the electorate (no offence to the guy, whom I don't know and may well be excellent).
Errm Bookies don't normally suspend prices when they're 'too short'...
So we see Theresa May going to Washington to meet President Trump. The dance is being danced and tradition being maintained. We may choose to regard May's visit as some symbol of our strategic and geopolitical importance but Enda Kenny will meet Trump on March 17th and that must make Kenny quite important too.
I'm less convinced - Trump's phone calls to Putin and Merkel tomorrow may be of greater significance and interest.
May's robust restating of Reagan/Thatcher conservatism was interesting and clearly with a more mainstream GOP President such as a Rubio or a Jeb Bush there would be no problems at all. Trump is a maverick, possibly the most influential since Theodore Roosevelt.
The truth however is for all the talk of ripping up 20 years if foreign policy, there was plenty of interventionism in the 80s - Lebanon and Grenada being two obvious examples.
I'm not sure what to make of Trump and that may be the point. He's an American patriot and there's nothing wrong with that. The presupposition that America's interests and ours will always coincide will be tested as much by him as it has been by every other President.
The British response will be fascinating - do we simply follow the American lead blindly or do we not ? We haven't always done so - Wilson avoided British military involvement in Vietnam and as we know Eisenhower took a very different view from Eden on Suez.
All of this happened before we joined the EU so being outside again doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow Washington's lead. We do however need Trump to reaffirm his backing for NATO.
I can certainly appreciate American frustration that some European countries aren't pulling their weight but as long as Trump clearly and unequivocally states that America's border is NATO's border the message won't be lost on Putin. Any equivocation, however, from the President would be hugely destabilising.
There are number of arguments they can reasonably make.
1) They are reflecting the will of their (Remain) constituency. 2) The facts have materially changed since the vote (Trump) and we need to take another look. 3) Personal conscience.
'Personal conscience' doesn't work, unless they voted against the referendum bill.
Nor for that matter does the result in their own constituency; if that was their view, again they should have voted against the referendum, on the basis that the decision should be taken by parliament. That would be a perfectly respectable view, just one that's not compatible with having voted for the referendum to happen.
Disagree. Depends again on what your personal view on what the advisory referendum was for. You can interpret that in many ways.
Disagree. Depends again on what your personal view on what the advisory referendum was for. You can interpret that in many ways.
No, you can't. You really can't. Not unless you are quite breathtakingly hypocritical.
Course you can. All it takes is to look at the world in a slightly different way to you.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Course you can. All it takes is to look at the world in a slightly different way to you.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Yes, if you are looking for an excuse, then 'material change' would be the least implausible. But none of the refuseniks seem to be running that one.
So we see Theresa May going to Washington to meet President Trump. The dance is being danced and tradition being maintained. We may choose to regard May's visit as some symbol of our strategic and geopolitical importance but Enda Kenny will meet Trump on March 17th and that must make Kenny quite important too.
I'm less convinced - Trump's phone calls to Putin and Merkel tomorrow may be of greater significance and interest.
May's robust restating of Reagan/Thatcher conservatism was interesting and clearly with a more mainstream GOP President such as a Rubio or a Jeb Bush there would be no problems at all. Trump is a maverick, possibly the most influential since Theodore Roosevelt.
The truth however is for all the talk of ripping up 20 years if foreign policy, there was plenty of interventionism in the 80s - Lebanon and Grenada being two obvious examples.
I'm not sure what to make of Trump and that may be the point. He's an American patriot and there's nothing wrong with that. The presupposition that America's interests and ours will always coincide will be tested as much by him as it has been by every other President.
The British response will be fascinating - do we simply follow the American lead blindly or do we not ? We haven't always done so - Wilson avoided British military involvement in Vietnam and as we know Eisenhower took a very different view from Eden on Suez.
All of this happened before we joined the EU so being outside again doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow Washington's lead. We do however need Trump to reaffirm his backing for NATO.
I can certainly appreciate American frustration that some European countries aren't pulling their weight but as long as Trump clearly and unequivocally states that America's border is NATO's border the message won't be lost on Putin. Any equivocation, however, from the President would be hugely destabilising.
I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of Trump's tearing up of trade deals. He wants bilateral deals, because he thinks he is the best deal maker around and it's easier to screw countries one at a time than if they are in powerful trading blocs. That's also why he likes Brexit.
The problem for Labour is not so much the position Corbyn has taken (or not taken) here. It's anaemic way in which he takes it and that it carries no weight.
A serial rebel cannot enforce a 3 line whip and the consequences for doing your own thing are zero. The PLP have already gone beyond what would normally be career ending.
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
You’re right. Temperature should be remind one of the UK on a perfect June day. And you’re not far from Above Eleven, where they sell the only beer I’m unable to drink!
[Consults internet] 35C during the day, 22C at night, 51% humidity.... maybe that sounds good to you English, but I'll pass, I think. I'm enjoying the fresh, frosty Berkshire mornings at the moment.
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
You’re right. Temperature should be remind one of the UK on a perfect June day. And you’re not far from Above Eleven, where they sell the only beer I’m unable to drink!
Above Eleven is great fun. Good food, two. And soi 11 is fun. Tho I marginally prefer 8. Or Cowboy if I feel racy.
Agree about above Eleven. Ate downstairs at Char Coal last time we were there. Interesting cocktails and beermugs.
Jo Stevens has quit the shadow cabinet. She described herself as a "passionate European" and said leaving the EU would be a terrible mistake. Jeremy Corbyn has ordered his MPs to vote in favour of Article 50, which would trigger the process for the UK to leave the European Union.
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
You’re right. Temperature should be remind one of the UK on a perfect June day. And you’re not far from Above Eleven, where they sell the only beer I’m unable to drink!
[Consults internet] 35C during the day, 22C at night, 51% humidity.... maybe that sounds good to you English, but I'll pass, I think. I'm enjoying the fresh, frosty Berkshire mornings at the moment.
The older I get the less and less keen I get on the British winter.
The problem for Labour is not so much the position Corbyn has taken (or not taken) here. It's anaemic way in which he takes it and that it carries no weight.
A serial rebel cannot enforce a 3 line whip and the consequences for doing your own thing are zero. The PLP have already gone beyond what would normally be career ending.
Labour is broken.
@ThomasWPenny: ``You, **more than any other member**... will understand.. I must follow my principles.'' @JoStevensLabour nails Corbyn's leadership problem
If you're an MP. If you respect the will of the people. Then you will vote for the A50 bill.
If not, then we know how little respect for democracy you have.
48% voted to stay. So 48% of MPs should vote against triggering, right?
Not the end of the world if that happens so long as 52% vote for triggering the rest can look like impotent undemocratic moron who have disrespected democracy and achieved nothing for it. Go for it.
Course you can. All it takes is to look at the world in a slightly different way to you.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Yes, if you are looking for an excuse, then 'material change' would be the least implausible. But none of the refuseniks seem to be running that one.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
So we see Theresa May going to Washington to meet President Trump. The dance is being danced and tradition being maintained. We may choose to regard May's visit as some symbol of our strategic and geopolitical importance but Enda Kenny will meet Trump on March 17th and that must make Kenny quite important too.
I'm less convinced - Trump's phone calls to Putin and Merkel tomorrow may be of greater significance and interest.
May's robust restating of Reagan/Thatcher conservatism was interesting and clearly with a more mainstream GOP President such as a Rubio or a Jeb Bush there would be no problems at all. Trump is a maverick, possibly the most influential since Theodore Roosevelt.
The truth however is for all the talk of ripping up 20 years if foreign policy, there was plenty of interventionism in the 80s - Lebanon and Grenada being two obvious examples.
I'm not sure what to make of Trump and that may be the point. He's an American patriot and there's nothing wrong with that. The presupposition that America's interests and ours will always coincide will be tested as much by him as it has been by every other President.
The British response will be fascinating - do we simply follow the American lead blindly or do we not ? We haven't always done so - Wilson avoided British military involvement in Vietnam and as we know Eisenhower took a very different view from Eden on Suez.
All of this happened before we joined the EU so being outside again doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow Washington's lead. We do however need Trump to reaffirm his backing for NATO.
I can certainly appreciate American frustration that some European countries aren't pulling their weight but as long as Trump clearly and unequivocally states that America's border is NATO's border the message won't be lost on Putin. Any equivocation, however, from the President would be hugely destabilising.
1) almost the first thing Trump did after inauguration was order the Churchill bust back into the Oval Office.
2) May was one of the first foreign leaders he talked to after inauguration, and is the first to visit DC.
3) May was the only foreign government leader ever to address the Republican congressional policy retreat.
4) Following the Mexico wall visit debacle, Trump needs to show he can make a deal. He needs to show this. Likewise May needs a trade deal too, or at least much 'motion towards'. It is in neither of their interests for this relationship not to be able to work together.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
4) Following the Mexico wall visit debacle, Trump needs to show he can make a deal. He needs to show this. Likewise May needs a trade deal too, or at least much 'motion towards'. It is in neither of their interests for this relationship not to be able to work together.
But he is likely to knacker it with torture or Putin
The problem for Labour is not so much the position Corbyn has taken (or not taken) here. It's anaemic way in which he takes it and that it carries no weight.
A serial rebel cannot enforce a 3 line whip and the consequences for doing your own thing are zero. The PLP have already gone beyond what would normally be career ending.
Labour is broken.
There was an entirely consistent and marketable message to be built around Labour accepting the vote and advocating the softest Brexit possible, in contrast to the Tory pursuit of a hard Brexit. Corbyn and McDonnell - both fervently opposed to the single market for many years - were never the people to make it. Corbyn betrayed Labour during the referendum and has proved incapable of leading it ever since. Because of that there is no loyalty to him and he is not able to create party discipline. Every day that he stays makes the road back for the party a longer one.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
Sitting on soi 8, Sukhumvit. Drinking g&t under the tropical stars. The chill out music fills the scented air. The hookers walk past in their hot pants, cackling, and eating fried cockroaches. Tuk tuk drivers gamble. A man sells stuffed toys to laughing, drunken tourists. The soaring skyscrapers sparkle in the sultry dark.
And another g&t arrives. And someone plays a guitar on a street corner. And I've written 20,000 words in eight days.
Bangkok in January is the best place on earth. I don't understand why EVERYONE isn't here. It's daft.
You’re right. Temperature should be remind one of the UK on a perfect June day. And you’re not far from Above Eleven, where they sell the only beer I’m unable to drink!
[Consults internet] 35C during the day, 22C at night, 51% humidity.... maybe that sounds good to you English, but I'll pass, I think. I'm enjoying the fresh, frosty Berkshire mornings at the moment.
The older I get the less and less keen I get on the British winter.
To each his own, I suppose. It's the season I find most pleasant. Plus, of course, it's the only time the Central Line feels anything other than sheer Purgatory.
Comments
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/im-starting-to-think-that-brexit-will-kill-ukip/
The UKIP northern dream is fading away.
http://wineforspicewarrenedwardes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/calle-doctor-fleming.html#!/2012/04/calle-doctor-fleming.html
I think this is alot more likely than the bunkum the Sun, and some of his Speccie chums have been putting about.
He's a smart cookie.
Labour 36%
Con 31%
UKIP 18%
Lib Dem 12%
Others 3%
For Labour to lose the Conservatives either need to improve their vote share or to see Labour collapse further than they do. The former doesn't look particularly likely, given that it hasn't happened in any by-election since the Conservatives entered government in 2010.
But evidently lots of gamblers feel differently.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/824960303569965057
I've thought a good deal about the Holocaust over the years, and wonder what I would have actually _done_ had I been (say) an Oberleutnant in the Heer. Lest we forget, Hitler had no compunction about executing members of his own armed forces.
(Or has it been long suspended?)
Edit - Which is an arse, as that's what I was planning to do one of Sunday's threads on.
"Brexit was more a protest vote than a rejection of the EU. "
Maybe connected?
Could be Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber 1992 all over again.
Guest speaker is George Osborne.
Even Diane Abbott seems to get it:
“You have to remember how this looks to people in post-industrial Britain, former mining areas, the north, the Midlands, south Wales – it would look as if elites were refusing to listen to them.
It would be wrong. How could MPs vote for a referendum and then turn around and say: it went the wrong way so we are ignoring it?”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/jeremy-corbyn-article-50-vote-two-labour-whips-refuse
Doubt the Stoke voters will care quite honestly. But the market was violently overbent to UKIP anyway imo.
The problem with what she is saying is that she doesn't mean it. She, Corbyn and McDonnell have rumbled that ignoring the result would probably get them beat in both by elections, & possibly be the death of the Labour Party, so they're saying what they have to say.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
I mean what do you make
P (Tories win Stoke, Don't win Copeland)
That probability has to be utterly tiny.
I can see how you could take the view that the referendum was a mistake, should never have been called, and then quite consistently say you don't accept the result. What I don't see is how you can have supported the referendum and now refuse to accept the result.
1) They are reflecting the will of their (Remain) constituency.
2) The facts have materially changed since the vote (Trump) and we need to take another look.
3) Personal conscience.
Nor for that matter does the result in their own constituency; if that was their view, again they should have voted against the referendum, on the basis that the decision should be taken by parliament. That would be a perfectly respectable view, just one that's not compatible with having voted for the referendum to happen.
Someone take it out back and do the honourable thing.
"Will not impede... "
Are you able to tell us more about your thriller? Thought of a name?
So we see Theresa May going to Washington to meet President Trump. The dance is being danced and tradition being maintained. We may choose to regard May's visit as some symbol of our strategic and geopolitical importance but Enda Kenny will meet Trump on March 17th and that must make Kenny quite important too.
I'm less convinced - Trump's phone calls to Putin and Merkel tomorrow may be of greater significance and interest.
May's robust restating of Reagan/Thatcher conservatism was interesting and clearly with a more mainstream GOP President such as a Rubio or a Jeb Bush there would be no problems at all. Trump is a maverick, possibly the most influential since Theodore Roosevelt.
The truth however is for all the talk of ripping up 20 years if foreign policy, there was plenty of interventionism in the 80s - Lebanon and Grenada being two obvious examples.
I'm not sure what to make of Trump and that may be the point. He's an American patriot and there's nothing wrong with that. The presupposition that America's interests and ours will always coincide will be tested as much by him as it has been by every other President.
The British response will be fascinating - do we simply follow the American lead blindly or do we not ? We haven't always done so - Wilson avoided British military involvement in Vietnam and as we know Eisenhower took a very different view from Eden on Suez.
All of this happened before we joined the EU so being outside again doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow Washington's lead. We do however need Trump to reaffirm his backing for NATO.
I can certainly appreciate American frustration that some European countries aren't pulling their weight but as long as Trump clearly and unequivocally states that America's border is NATO's border the message won't be lost on Putin. Any equivocation, however, from the President would be hugely destabilising.
Labour needs a new electorate. They've been rumbled by this one.
Very good man.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Who was it on here, who said May should have just done an A50 enabling bill, and would get loads of support for it?
These are the kinds of shenanigans May was hoping to avoid. Oh well.
If you're an MP. If you respect the will of the people. Then you will vote for the A50 bill.
If not, then we know how little respect for democracy you have.
A) Continuing freedom of movement
or
b) Ending free movement of Capital
which one do you think is more important to him?
I think B.
Probably a net of a hundred or so lost UKIP votes there.
A serial rebel cannot enforce a 3 line whip and the consequences for doing your own thing are zero. The PLP have already gone beyond what would normally be career ending.
Labour is broken.
Jo Stevens has quit the shadow cabinet. She described herself as a "passionate European" and said leaving the EU would be a terrible mistake. Jeremy Corbyn has ordered his MPs to vote in favour of Article 50, which would trigger the process for the UK to leave the European Union.
No, as you well know, it was a binary decision. The moment Leave won, then A50 (should have been) the inevitable consequence.
You don't give one third of the FA cup to the team that lost in a 2-1 final. The results are in. The decision is made. A50 should not be in doubt.
Lord - even Diane Abbot gets this.
2) May was one of the first foreign leaders he talked to after inauguration, and is the first to visit DC.
3) May was the only foreign government leader ever to address the Republican congressional policy retreat.
4) Following the Mexico wall visit debacle, Trump needs to show he can make a deal. He needs to show this. Likewise May needs a trade deal too, or at least much 'motion towards'. It is in neither of their interests for this relationship not to be able to work together.
The other 48% of the MP can internally disagree.
Sinn Fein would do as well if they took their seats, seeing as they see their sub-region of the UK 'outwith'.
I don't think any unionist politician that voted for the referendum can do so.