Surely the good thing about being a Labour MP uncertain if you want to enter the Shadow Cabinet but knowing you are one of the few left who has not resigned from it or committed to not being in even if asked, is if things go badly something will come along in a few months which will give you a reason to resign as well, limiting the damage, and there are so many former shadow cabinet members most people probably won't remember you were in it, nor will you have spent that much time with Jeremy himself, since depending on your portfolio he probably ignored you anyway. And of course on the off chance things go well, you reap the reward for being a loyal trooper for that unlikely event.
If I may venture to say so without being rude, that post is an excellent and an amazing reflection of the state of the Labour party.
Or, more succinctly, ... eh?
Well, perhaps I could have split it across more than 2 sentences, 90% of them in one sentence.
But in short:
A lot of people have resigned from the shadow cabinet Not many are left who are available to fill the posts Many who have filled previous vacancies have then resigned not long after Therefore one can accept a position, knowing a reason for resignation will come along if needed to save face So many have served in the shadow cabinet you can probably avoid criticism for doing so, since few will remember you amid the crowd
I think the 'eh' was because you started the second sentence with a conjunction ("And"): if you ever feel like doing that, change the full stop for a colon and omit the 'And'.
I've been trying to avoid colons and semi-colons since I went a bit overboard with them awhile back - it looked like I was sprinkling a code through my text.
Did Lindsay Hoyle just give some MPs a rollocking for singing Ode to Joy?
By "some MPs" you mean the SNP mob - the same lot who applaud as if they were at a county council meeting or something like that.
Yes, they should be showing respect for the mother of parliaments in the prescribed way. Barking, bellowing, jeering, finger pointing and the like.
Heseltine's moment with the mace came after Labour backbenchers sang The Red Flag in the chamber. Perhaps the mace could be brought into more functional use a second time?
I believe he loses his U.S. nationality automatically the moment he becomes the foreign minister of another country. The assumption is that his allegiance is to the country he is foreign minister of and as such would work against U.S. interests. This would be incompatible with his U.S. nationality.
"Because there is no administrative presumption that U.S. nationals who hold policy-level positions in foreign governments necessarily intend to retain their U.S. nationality , efforts are made to adjudicate fully such cases to determine the individual's intent. Certain policy level positions are inherently incompatible with retaining U.S. nationality. Cases of this nature generally involve heads of state or foreign ministers. Except with respect to these positions, the Department will not typically consider employment in a policy-level position to lead to loss of nationality if the individual says that he or she did not intend to lose their U.S. nationality and if the individual’s actions were consistent with the retention of U.S. nationality. Actions consistent with the retention of U.S. nationality include, but are not limited to, travel on a U.S. passport, voting in U.S. elections, payment of U.S. taxes, maintenance of a residence in the United States, etc.. In any event each policy-level position case is fully evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
As soon as the US send him the letter, he'd have to give it up. T'was only a matter of time.
An issue would be organising which date it was from - an argument could be made that an MPs oath of office is an effective renunciation of US citizenship.
Then there is the tax fun - if you have more than $2 million in assets, it gets moderately complicated.
I have spent the last 2 days in Copeland. I stayed overnight in the Trout Inn in Cockermouth where apparently Bing Crosby was a regular visitor back in the day (for the fishing apparently). My general observation is that you would not know there is a bye-election taken place. I drove the whole of the constituency on the A595 and saw precisely 3 posters: one for the LDs on the road out of Keswick, one for Labour in Whitehaven, and one for the Conservatives in Bootle - probably the home of the candidate. So expect a poor turnout. The local churches have arranged a hustings on Saturday but apparently the Labour candidate has refused to attend- replaced by tub of lard?
I think the election poster has been consigned to the dustbin of history as a metric of anything.
@tnewtondunn: Breaking: Clive Lewis resigns. How long before he challenges Corbyn for leader?
He is in D Miliband's position re Brown now. Either he stands or he falls.
Lewis has until the summer to decide (or organise); the risk of a spring election is good enough reason to wait for now. But once that window closes, he must act. No-one else is in as good a position to challenge and the assumption must be that whoever wins a 2017 leadership election will lead Labour into the general election (which if it's not this Spring won't be until 2019 because of the Brexit negotiations).
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
I believe he loses his U.S. nationality automatically the moment he becomes the foreign minister of another country. The assumption is that his allegiance is to the country he is foreign minister of and as such would work against U.S. interests. This would be incompatible with his U.S. nationality.
I thought he gave it up a while ago, they threatened to make him pay Federal taxes
If you have US citizenship you have to pay tax, even if living abroad. Most income tax can be written off against UK tax paid, but Capital Gains is a big issue. For most people the cost is the filling in the tax return to say you owe no tax.
And you can't renounce until you've paid your taxes...
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
I mean the "stand part" vote. What else does it achieve?
@PolhomeEditor: So Labour whips Vicky Foxcroft, Thangam Debbonaire and Jeff Smith all voted against the 3-line whip again. That's new politics right there.
Did Lindsay Hoyle just give some MPs a rollocking for singing Ode to Joy?
By "some MPs" you mean the SNP mob - the same lot who applaud as if they were at a county council meeting or something like that.
Yes, they should be showing respect for the mother of parliaments in the prescribed way. Barking, bellowing, jeering, finger pointing and the like.
Heseltine's moment with the mace came after Labour backbenchers sang The Red Flag in the chamber. Perhaps the mace could be brought into more functional use a second time?
I've noticed that Heseltine, not the most reactionary of Tories, can still work himself into a lather about Marxists and Reds. Habit of a lifetime I guess.
@tnewtondunn: Breaking: Clive Lewis resigns. How long before he challenges Corbyn for leader?
He is in D Miliband's position re Brown now. Either he stands or he falls.
Lewis has until the summer to decide (or organise); the risk of a spring election is good enough reason to wait for now. But once that window closes, he must act. No-one else is in as good a position to challenge and the assumption must be that whoever wins a 2017 leadership election will lead Labour into the general election (which if it's not this Spring won't be until 2019 because of the Brexit negotiations).
Oh the yearly leadership challenge.
From a betting perspective, great. I am pretty much all green on Labour leaders, starting from laying Hilary Benn at 3.45(! - always wish you'd done more of course :P) also laid Angela at 2.8, Smith at 2... of course I backed some of those losers as well, but there's clearly a great opportunity there.
@tnewtondunn: Breaking: Clive Lewis resigns. How long before he challenges Corbyn for leader?
He is in D Miliband's position re Brown now. Either he stands or he falls.
Lewis has until the summer to decide (or organise); the risk of a spring election is good enough reason to wait for now. But once that window closes, he must act. No-one else is in as good a position to challenge and the assumption must be that whoever wins a 2017 leadership election will lead Labour into the general election (which if it's not this Spring won't be until 2019 because of the Brexit negotiations).
Oh the yearly leadership challenge.
From a betting perspective, great.
Also good for the party finances, charge a fee for entry again!
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
The SNP voting against CETA seems pretty stupid given that they will need the EU on their side in the referendum campaign and beyond if they win.
The last thing the feeble fifty want to do is leave Westminster. They've barely drawn a sober breath since they arrived as their chimpanzee's tea party manners reveal.
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
I mean the "stand part" vote. What else does it achieve?
I think the clauses of the Bill that received second reading need to formally be confirmed by the Committee stage (stand part of the Bill).
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
No.
The Committee goes through the WHOLE Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
No.
The Committee goes through the whole Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
I understand there was just the one vote, on both clauses together?
Surely the good thing about being a Labour MP uncertain if you want to enter the Shadow Cabinet but knowing you are one of the few left who has not resigned from it or committed to not being in even if asked, is if things go badly something will come along in a few months which will give you a reason to resign as well, limiting the damage, and there are so many former shadow cabinet members most people probably won't remember you were in it, nor will you have spent that much time with Jeremy himself, since depending on your portfolio he probably ignored you anyway. And of course on the off chance things go well, you reap the reward for being a loyal trooper for that unlikely event.
If I may venture to say so without being rude, that post is an excellent and an amazing reflection of the state of the Labour party.
Or, more succinctly, ... eh?
Well, perhaps I could have split it across more than 2 sentences, 90% of them in one sentence.
But in short:
A lot of people have resigned from the shadow cabinet Not many are left who are available to fill the posts Many who have filled previous vacancies have then resigned not long after Therefore one can accept a position, knowing a reason for resignation will come along if needed to save face So many have served in the shadow cabinet you can probably avoid criticism for doing so, since few will remember you amid the crowd
@PolhomeEditor: So Labour whips Vicky Foxcroft, Thangam Debbonaire and Jeff Smith all voted against the 3-line whip again. That's new politics right there.
How on Earth can three Labour Whips vote against their own three-line whip and not get fired?
Corbyn surely loses even more respect within the party, if he can't even get rid of his own whips for voting the wrong way?
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
No.
The Committee goes through the whole Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
I understand there was just the one vote, on both clauses together?
Yes, they can take more than one Clause at the same time - if considered appropriate.
In this case, makes sense as neither clause had been amended - ie as all amendments had been defeated.
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
No.
The Committee goes through the whole Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
I understand there was just the one vote, on both clauses together?
Yes, that's right - the chairman of the Committee can group related votes together. On this occasion. clause 2 is utterly meaningless without clause 1.
Yes, on this occasion the "stand part" is essentially equivalent to a "two and a halfth" reading. That's just because the Bill is so simple - it's not usually like that.
What happens if you vote down all amendments, but then vote down the "put the bill as it stands to a vote" vote?
Then the Bill fails and never gets to the Lords.
So why not concentrate fire on that one then?
If you can defeat a Bill at third reading you should be able to defeat it at second reading.
The problem is that once it gets to the third reading the Commons has already agreed that the Bill should, in principle, be passed (as that's what giving the bill its second reading means). According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) only one post-war government Bill has been defeated in the Commons at third reading.
I meant, of the two votes tonight - the actual vote and the preceding "put it to a vote" vote - presumably both kill the bill, so why is there a difference in opposition?
Was there a "put it to the vote" vote? The CommonsVotes app shows nothing between the Euratom amendment and the third reading votes.
No there wasn't.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE: Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
He's not the only one.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
No.
The Committee goes through the whole Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
I understand there was just the one vote, on both clauses together?
Yes, that's right - the chairman of the Committee can group related votes together. On this occasion. clause 2 is utterly meaningless without clause 1.
Yes, on this occasion the "stand part" is essentially equivalent to a "two and a halfth" reading. That's just because the Bill is so simple - it's not usually like that.
Further to that: If "stand part" had failed I assume that the government would have withdrawn the Bill as there would have been no point carrying on.
@PolhomeEditor: So Labour whips Vicky Foxcroft, Thangam Debbonaire and Jeff Smith all voted against the 3-line whip again. That's new politics right there.
How on Earth can three Labour Whips vote against their own three-line whip and not get fired?
Corbyn surely loses even more respect within the party, if he can't even get rid of his own whips for voting the wrong way?
Parliamentary party, maybe, but it's not as though he was well supported in that regard anyway. Though some are saying even the members are struggling a bit with him.
Did Lindsay Hoyle just give some MPs a rollocking for singing Ode to Joy?
By "some MPs" you mean the SNP mob - the same lot who applaud as if they were at a county council meeting or something like that.
Yes, they should be showing respect for the mother of parliaments in the prescribed way. Barking, bellowing, jeering, finger pointing and the like.
Heseltine's moment with the mace came after Labour backbenchers sang The Red Flag in the chamber. Perhaps the mace could be brought into more functional use a second time?
I've noticed that Heseltine, not the most reactionary of Tories, can still work himself into a lather about Marxists and Reds. Habit of a lifetime I guess.
Italians out of love with the Euro - 47-41 say it's a negative.
Will they do anything about it?
Reading the article, the inference is that three of the four major parties are against it. The next election will probably trigger some sort of action.
Did Lindsay Hoyle just give some MPs a rollocking for singing Ode to Joy?
By "some MPs" you mean the SNP mob - the same lot who applaud as if they were at a county council meeting or something like that.
Yes, they should be showing respect for the mother of parliaments in the prescribed way. Barking, bellowing, jeering, finger pointing and the like.
Heseltine's moment with the mace came after Labour backbenchers sang The Red Flag in the chamber. Perhaps the mace could be brought into more functional use a second time?
I've noticed that Heseltine, not the most reactionary of Tories, can still work himself into a lather about Marxists and Reds. Habit of a lifetime I guess.
I see Le Pen is closing the gap on Fillon. I think she will win it against him (but lose to macron who will more easily rally the left). France is fed up and Marine is running a very personalised campaign, making it not about the FN but about her, and doesn't stand purely for antisemitism and racsism like her father in 2002. She's a very competent politician, and clearly has Russian backing too (although considering Fillon was pro-Russia I'm not sure why Putin didn't just work to get him elected)
Surely the good thing about being a Labour MP uncertain if you want to enter the Shadow Cabinet but knowing you are one of the few left who has not resigned from it or committed to not being in even if asked, is if things go badly something will come along in a few months which will give you a reason to resign as well, limiting the damage, and there are so many former shadow cabinet members most people probably won't remember you were in it, nor will you have spent that much time with Jeremy himself, since depending on your portfolio he probably ignored you anyway. And of course on the off chance things go well, you reap the reward for being a loyal trooper for that unlikely event.
If I may venture to say so without being rude, that post is an excellent and an amazing reflection of the state of the Labour party.
Or, more succinctly, ... eh?
Well, perhaps I could have split it across more than 2 sentences, 90% of them in one sentence.
But in short:
A lot of people have resigned from the shadow cabinet Not many are left who are available to fill the posts Many who have filled previous vacancies have then resigned not long after Therefore one can accept a position, knowing a reason for resignation will come along if needed to save face So many have served in the shadow cabinet you can probably avoid criticism for doing so, since few will remember you amid the crowd
I think the 'eh' was because you started the second sentence with a conjunction ("And"): if you ever feel like doing that, change the full stop for a colon and omit the 'And'.
I've been trying to avoid colons and semi-colons since I went a bit overboard with them awhile back - it looked like I was sprinkling a code through my text.
No one likes to use them: probably because they don't get to use them now at school; university; at work or wherever. My current bete-noire, however, is 'however'. However 'however' is used it seems that the attending punctuation is incorrect; however, we should remember that it can be used after a semi colon at the start of a phrase. It should be noted, however, that it can be included mid-phrase if parsed by commas.
Still the Lords to go! And then possibly Ping Pong.
Well, yes. But if the Lords play silly buggers in the face of the votes of both the people and the Commons, the threat of certain measures can bring them in line.
Surely the good thing about being a Labour MP uncertain if you want to enter the Shadow Cabinet but knowing you are one of the few left who has not resigned from it or committed to not being in even if asked, is if things go badly something will come along in a few months which will give you a reason to resign as well, limiting the damage, and there are so many former shadow cabinet members most people probably won't remember you were in it, nor will you have spent that much time with Jeremy himself, since depending on your portfolio he probably ignored you anyway. And of course on the off chance things go well, you reap the reward for being a loyal trooper for that unlikely event.
If I may venture to say so without being rude, that post is an excellent and an amazing reflection of the state of the Labour party.
Or, more succinctly, ... eh?
Well, perhaps I could have split it across more than 2 sentences, 90% of them in one sentence.
But in short:
A lot of people have resigned from the shadow cabinet Not many are left who are available to fill the posts Many who have filled previous vacancies have then resigned not long after Therefore one can accept a position, knowing a reason for resignation will come along if needed to save face So many have served in the shadow cabinet you can probably avoid criticism for doing so, since few will remember you amid the crowd
I think the 'eh' was because you started the second sentence with a conjunction ("And"): if you ever feel like doing that, change the full stop for a colon and omit the 'And'.
I've been trying to avoid colons and semi-colons since I went a bit overboard with them awhile back - it looked like I was sprinkling a code through my text.
Friend of mine was taking a course of study that entailed writing lots of essays. He hadn't a clue about punctuation. He told me that his policy was to write the whole thing without punctuation and then scatter punctuation-marks through it like salt & pepper.
I have spent the last 2 days in Copeland. I stayed overnight in the Trout Inn in Cockermouth where apparently Bing Crosby was a regular visitor back in the day (for the fishing apparently). My general observation is that you would not know there is a bye-election taken place. I drove the whole of the constituency on the A595 and saw precisely 3 posters: one for the LDs on the road out of Keswick, one for Labour in Whitehaven, and one for the Conservatives in Bootle - probably the home of the candidate. So expect a poor turnout. The local churches have arranged a hustings on Saturday but apparently the Labour candidate has refused to attend- replaced by tub of lard?
I think the election poster has been consigned to the dustbin of history as a metric of anything.
That's been the case for centuries; why do you think slavery was not mentioned in the US Constitution ?
The USA is a nation founded on genocide and slavery. The significance of this in the manifestation of today's disparate attitudes amongst its population, is the very large elephant in the very large room.
Comments
Then there is the tax fun - if you have more than $2 million in assets, it gets moderately complicated.
Lewis has until the summer to decide (or organise); the risk of a spring election is good enough reason to wait for now. But once that window closes, he must act. No-one else is in as good a position to challenge and the assumption must be that whoever wins a 2017 leadership election will lead Labour into the general election (which if it's not this Spring won't be until 2019 because of the Brexit negotiations).
And you can't renounce until you've paid your taxes...
On threat. Tory whacko tries to bring down our John for saying Trump is a wrong un. Good look that !!
From a betting perspective, great. I am pretty much all green on Labour leaders, starting from laying Hilary Benn at 3.45(! - always wish you'd done more of course :P) also laid Angela at 2.8, Smith at 2... of course I backed some of those losers as well, but there's clearly a great opportunity there.
Confusion was the vote on the Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee.
3 types of vote today:
IN COMMITTEE:
Clauses 1 and 2 - Govt voted Yes
All other New Clauses and amendments - Govt voted No
3RD READING - Govt voted Yes
Lewis got confused re Clauses 1 and 2!
70.74% of Labour MPs did the same (162/229).
So despite the speculation, the Lib Dems didn't take the "most rebllious" crown.
What's the purpose of the "Clauses 1 and 2 in Committee" vote - is it not just the inverse of of the amendments?
The Committee goes through the WHOLE Bill.
So it votes on each clause of the Bill separately (as passed at 2nd Reading), as well as any amendments.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eurozone-italy-exit-analysis-idUKKBN15N0JK?il=0
Interesting to see that Brexit is being cited as an example of why Project Fear should be ignored.
Thank you.
Corbyn surely loses even more respect within the party, if he can't even get rid of his own whips for voting the wrong way?
In this case, makes sense as neither clause had been amended - ie as all amendments had been defeated.
Yes, on this occasion the "stand part" is essentially equivalent to a "two and a halfth" reading. That's just because the Bill is so simple - it's not usually like that.
NEW THREAD
The obscure rule used to stop @SenWarren last night was created to protect a lynching advocate in the Senate.
To protect a lynching advocate!???!?!? wtf!?