The question will be exactly the same as 2014 as will the franchise - only the result will change.
Both are subject to agreement by Westminster. As circumstances have changed there may be changes to both the question and the franchise.
When the Scots eventually vote for independence will you suddenly become a supporter of it, as you did with Brexit?
I'm a democrat - what are you?
So is that a yes then?
And no answer from you.....
My answer is widely known. Brexit should happen. Can't change the vote. But no-one voted for leaving the single market – so we should stay in that. Sadly your mate May has caved into the frother wing of your once great party and now we are headed for economic isolation.
One was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head of the government that would enact whatever happened after the referendum, the other was a non-longer existing campaign group with no responsibility whatsoever.
But you knew that.
(Not to mention that you have no evidence whatsoever that the aspirational 350m ("Let us") won't happen, and wont know for a couple of years.)
Was. Was. Was the prime minister.
The other was the official official official Leave group.
Got to repeat it for you because you seem to have a block about it.
And you seem to have forgotten that the same Prime Minister would stay on even if he lost the vote. Early onset?
Events dear boy, events. Not got the hang of this politics thing, have you.
The question will be exactly the same as 2014 as will the franchise - only the result will change.
Both are subject to agreement by Westminster. As circumstances have changed there may be changes to both the question and the franchise.
When the Scots eventually vote for independence will you suddenly become a supporter of it, as you did with Brexit?
I'm a democrat - what are you?
So is that a yes then?
And no answer from you.....
My answer is widely known. Brexit should happen. Can't change the vote. But no-one voted for leaving the single market – so we should stay in that. Sadly your mate May has caved into the frother wing of your once great party and now we are headed for economic isolation.
One was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head of the government that would enact whatever happened after the referendum, the other was a non-longer existing campaign group with no responsibility whatsoever.
But you knew that.
(Not to mention that you have no evidence whatsoever that the aspirational 350m ("Let us") won't happen, and wont know for a couple of years.)
Was. Was. Was the prime minister.
The other was the official official official Leave group.
Got to repeat it for you because you seem to have a block about it.
And you seem to have forgotten that the same Prime Minister would stay on even if he lost the vote. Early onset?
Events dear boy, events. Not got the hang of this politics thing, have you.
I think Cameron was the one who hadn't got the hang of this politics thing! Numpty....
PS Cameron discovering that Cameron was a lying git doesn't really qualify as "events"....
The question will be exactly the same as 2014 as will the franchise - only the result will change.
Both are subject to agreement by Westminster. As circumstances have changed there may be changes to both the question and the franchise.
When the Scots eventually vote for independence will you suddenly become a supporter of it, as you did with Brexit?
I'm a democrat - what are you?
So is that a yes then?
And no answer from you.....
My answer is widely known. Brexit should happen. Can't change the vote. But no-one voted for leaving the single market – so we should stay in that. Sadly your mate May has caved into the frother wing of your once great party and now we are headed for economic isolation.
One was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head of the government that would enact whatever happened after the referendum, the other was a non-longer existing campaign group with no responsibility whatsoever.
But you knew that.
(Not to mention that you have no evidence whatsoever that the aspirational 350m ("Let us") won't happen, and wont know for a couple of years.)
Was. Was. Was the prime minister.
The other was the official official official Leave group.
Got to repeat it for you because you seem to have a block about it.
And you seem to have forgotten that the same Prime Minister would stay on even if he lost the vote. Early onset?
Events dear boy, events. Not got the hang of this politics thing, have you.
I think Cameron was the one who hadn't got the hang of this politics thing! Numpty....
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Come on, let's not be horrid. You don't really want to force me to divert the thread onto varying systems of inheritance or which Star Wars film is best to watch first, do you?
All these arguments about the "right" levels of immigration into the UK, are like arguments about the "best" use and disposal of horse manure in London streets, in about 1890
So you are comparing people to faeces now?
Drink some coffee and dry out man.
Oh grow up. The comparison was metaphorical. Not literal. Horses were considered a big issue in London in the 1890s. We needed room for stables, liveries, mews, there was the problem of manure, where to put all the ancillary industries - tanneries, farriers, etc.
Then came the internal combustion engine, and within two decades horses, and all the positives and negatives of their presence, were rendered entirely and
A universal basic income and retraining funded by a tax on robots is the inevitable result of automation
Promptly followed by all those robots (and their factories) moving offshore into a regime that doesn't charge the Robot Tax.
Every regime worldwide will impose the robot tax given global automation and that the inevitable alternative is a violent revolution or a Communist government from the new mass underclass
In your dreams perhaps.
Some country will inevitably impose no robot tax and undercut everyone else.
It's called "capitalism" - and it works like that..
Nope as Greece proves once unemployment goes over 25% you get a hard left government. Capitalism only works if most people benefit from it, the moment it only benefits an elite minority it effectively becomes feudalism except worse because most do not have work to do, that may then produce the next Lenin never mind the next Tsipras!
SO you don't see the benefits of capitalism? No cheap cars, food or internet..
Greece was caused by a corrupt and lying Government which borrowed too much and lied and lied.. and has so pissed off its creditors they will not forgive its debt (which they should do as it will nver be repaid)
If automation leads to mass unemployment with no universal basic income to ease the pain funded by a robot tax there will be not even the basics most people got in the Soviet Union let alone the goods they can now afford when employed under pre automation capitalism
Greece was caused by a corrupt and lying Government which borrowed too much and lied and lied.. and has so pissed off its creditors they will not forgive its debt (which they should do as it will nver be repaid) If you vote Socialist solidly for 40 years you end up achieving the promise of socialism. The USSR, DDR, Venezuela and Cuba the same. Pre-Deng China too. Funny that.
Oh grow up. The comparison was metaphorical. Not literal. Horses were considered a big issue in London in the 1890s. We needed room for stables, liveries, mews, there was the problem of manure, where to put all the ancillary industries - tanneries, farriers, etc.
Then came the internal combustion engine, and within two decades horses, and all the positives and negatives of their presence, were rendered entirely and laughably irrelevant.
We are arguing about immigration like it is something we must have or die. It would have felt the same vis-a-vis horse-drawn traffic in the late Victorian era.
But the truth is we are facing a period of rapid automation and robotisation where the problem is going to be too MANY people and workers, and not enough jobs.
Take, for instance (if your tiny brain can bear the weight of the concept) the future of drivers. How many pro drivers work in and around London? 50,000? 200,000? More? In ten years time likely ALL those jobs will be gone.
A universal basic income and retraining funded by a tax on robots is the inevitable result of automation
Promptly followed by all those robots (and their factories) moving offshore into a regime that doesn't charge the Robot Tax.
Every regime worldwide will impose the robot tax given global automation and that the inevitable alternative is a violent revolution or a Communist government from the new mass underclass
In your dreams perhaps.
Some country will inevitably impose no robot tax and undercut everyone else.
It's called "capitalism" - and it works like that..
Nope as Greece proves once unemployment goes over 25% you get a hard left government. Capitalism only works if most people benefit from it, the moment it only benefits an elite minority it effectively becomes feudalism except worse because most do not have work to do, that may then produce the next Lenin never mind the next Tsipras!
SO you don't see the benefits of capitalism? No cheap cars, food or internet..
Greece was caused by a corrupt and lying Government which borrowed too much and lied and lied.. and has so pissed off its creditors they will not forgive its debt (which they should do as it will nver be repaid)
Not just the government. Most people, companies, unions and other organisations were complicit. But it's a lot easier to blame the government.
Mr. Eagles, I agree, although I do think quite a few people voted Leave to kick Cameron (a stupid reason to vote a certain way given the importance of the referendum, but there we are).
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Was Cameron:
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
Jeez you have nearly 12,000 posts on PB and you still don't understand how politics works.
He as a matter of real politik couldn't say he would resign if he lost. No politician would answer in the affirmative to such a bear trap of a question.
Mr. Eagles, I agree, although I do think quite a few people voted Leave to kick Cameron (a stupid reason to vote a certain way given the importance of the referendum, but there we are).
We saw it with the AV referendum. Some voted NO2AV to give Nick Clegg a kicking. The tossers.
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Was Cameron:
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
He had to lie.
He needed to ensure the referendum wasn't about him.
It would have encouraged non Tories to vote Leave to get rid of Dave.
He did the same during the Indyref
did voters hate him that much ?
I really quite liked Dave. The DfiD waste irked but overall he was a good egg. But then he revealed himself to be a profound liar. He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him. We had to leave and he had to go.
Greece was caused by a corrupt and lying Government which borrowed too much and lied and lied.. and has so pissed off its creditors they will not forgive its debt (which they should do as it will nver be repaid) If you vote Socialist solidly for 40 years you end up achieving the promise of socialism. The USSR, DDR, Venezuela and Cuba the same. Pre-Deng China too. Funny that.
Not sure that there were that many elections in the USSR, the DR or Cuba. Greece, of course, did not vote socialist for 40 years. Revolutions happen in response to something - people who are content with things do not tend to rise up violently against those who govern them. The genius of the British ruling class has been to recognise this and to bend to the will of the people at the appropriate time. Most recently, we have seen it with Brexit.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Would you say the same about May going to Copeland? I still think Labour will win both but there is increasingly little doubt about which one is at risk.
Mr. Eagles, I agree, although I do think quite a few people voted Leave to kick Cameron (a stupid reason to vote a certain way given the importance of the referendum, but there we are).
We saw it with the AV referendum. Some voted NO2AV to give Nick Clegg a kicking. The tossers.
I think you'll find the vast majority were more interested in confirming FPTP as the true apex of voting systems.
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Was Cameron:
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
He had to lie.
He needed to ensure the referendum wasn't about him.
It would have encouraged non Tories to vote Leave to get rid of Dave.
He did the same during the Indyref
did voters hate him that much ?
I really quite liked Dave. The DfiD waste irked but overall he was a good egg. But then he revealed himself to be a profound liar. He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him. We had to leave and he had to go.
I had Dave in the relatively harmless category. The only thing I held against him was Osborne.
Mr. Eagles, I agree, although I do think quite a few people voted Leave to kick Cameron (a stupid reason to vote a certain way given the importance of the referendum, but there we are).
We saw it with the AV referendum. Some voted NO2AV to give Nick Clegg a kicking. The tossers.
I note that some posters consider it "stalkerish" to ask them to answer a question now. Ho hum. No matter, if they don't want to answer, up to them. Last of it from me.
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
I think Ms Sturgeon is about to push the referendum button and May will come to regret beaking the promise she made last July to formulate an agreed UK position backed by Scotland.
Popcorn on standby....
But Sturgeon doesn't want to push the button. She wants to make it look likeshe is about to push the button any minute now, any minute, a few more seconds, here we go, look, she's about to push it, here we gooooooooo - thus provoking TMay into saying there can be no indyref2 until Brexit is completed. And Westminster has the final say on this.
Thus Sturgeon avoids a vote she would likely lose (not one poll has YES ahead, even now), and gets to stoke the fires of Scots grievance for a swift vote post-Brexit.
However Sturgeon might go so far in her brinkmanship that she HAS to call a plebiscite or risk a huge war within her own ranks. A dangerous game for all.
Salmond decided the franchise in 2014 as Sturgeon will for 2018. It will be the same 16-17 year olds in and European Citizens.It will be the same franchise as elected the Parliament which is about to vote for the referendum.
If Cameron had taken Salmond's advice and included these groups last June he would still be Prime Minister!!!
You must understand the riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma that is Brexityoon logic.
Sturgeon is bluffing because no one wants Indy ref II and she would definitely lose, but May should block it anyway, however just in case the franchise should be withdrawn from 16-17 year olds & EU nationals, and the winning threshold for Yes should be raised to 60%.
I think that covers their current position(s).
You forgot about border patrol boats on the Tweed but not on the Foyle. A personal favourite of mine.
There are going to be some controls on the Foyle. Cameras and the like. The harder border will be across the Irish Sea.
"The secretary of state for exiting the EU, David Davis, has suggested that the arrangements between Norway and Sweden could be a model to copy, where CCTV cameras equipped for automatic number-plate recognition are in place"
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
That's true. Lots of myths about currency and money. Another one you regularly encounter is that if a good is displayed at a certain price in a shop, the shop has to sell you it at that price. That's false. The vendor can sell it the product at any price they choose, regardless of what is shown on the ticket. They can also choose not to sell it at all.
Miss Plato, wouldn't that make everyone who isn't bisexual a sexist?
Still, accusing someone of bigotry saves having to actually think of an argument against them.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. AV should've been voted against because it's a demented cocktail of failure and remorse, not to kick Clegg.
AV leads to loneliness, depression, and Ed Miliband.
Davis wasn't necessarily being sexist. He was, however, guilty of being deeply ungallant. He could have phrased his response in an amusing, yet more chivalrous, way.
I will try and give you an update on the Stoke Central situation at the end of the week. It is not in the bag for Labour, Jeremy has to go win or lose.
All these arguments about the "right" levels of immigration into the UK, are like arguments about the "best" use and disposal of horse manure in London streets, in about 1890
So you are comparing people to faeces now?
Drink some coffee and dry out man.
Oh grow up. The comparison was metaphorical. Not literal. Horses were considered a big issue in London in the 1890s. We needed room for stables, liveries, mews, there was the problem of manure, where to put all the ancillary industries - tanneries, farriers, etc.
Then came the internal combustion engine, and within two decades horses, and all the positives and negatives of their presence, were rendered entirely and
A universal basic income and retraining funded by a tax on robots is the inevitable result of automation
Promptly followed by all those robots (and their factories) moving offshore into a regime that doesn't charge the Robot Tax.
Every regime worldwide will impose the robot tax given global automation and that the inevitable alternative is a violent revolution or a Communist government from the new mass underclass
In your dreams perhaps.
Some country will inevitably impose no robot tax and undercut everyone else.
It's called "capitalism" - and it works like that..
Nope as Greece proves once unemployment goes over 25% you get a hard left government. Capitalism only works if most people benefit from it, the moment it only benefits an elite minority it effectively becomes feudalism except worse because most do not have work to do, that may then produce the next Lenin never mind the next Tsipras!
SO you don't see the benefits of capitalism? No cheap cars, food or internet..
Greece was caused by a corrupt and lying Government which borrowed too much and lied and lied.. and has so pissed off its creditors they will not forgive its debt (which they should do as it will nver be repaid)
If automation leads to mass unemployment with no universal basic income to ease the pain funded by a robot tax there will be not even the basics most people got in the Soviet Union let alone the goods they can now afford when employed under pre automation capitalism
What a load of codswallop.
Automation leads to innovation and people fill new roles previously thought to be impossible or unnecessary.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
Report from Stoke on ConHome seems to say Lab 1st LDems 2nd
Wouldn't surprise me, UKIP are finished as a political project. Should have gone out with a bang after the Brexit referendum, claimed victory and dissolved. Now they're going to go out with a whimper instead.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
It is the Corbynisation of the Tory party.
Remember you've had PBers saying recently the Tories won in 2015 in spite of Dave.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
It is the Corbynisation of the Tory party.
Remember you've had PBers saying recently the Tories won in 2015 in spite of Dave.
Miss Plato, wouldn't that make everyone who isn't bisexual a sexist?
Still, accusing someone of bigotry saves having to actually think of an argument against them.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. AV should've been voted against because it's a demented cocktail of failure and remorse, not to kick Clegg.
AV leads to loneliness, depression, and Ed Miliband.
Didn't someone publish a study on here the other day that showed that had the 2015 election been run under AV, there'd have been virtually no change from FPTP, but that the Tories would have had a marginally larger majority? (Presumably because most people inclined to vote tactically have pre-transferred their votes in seats where it'd make a difference)
Labour’s difficulties have been enhanced as the Conservatives have pulled out of the race in all but name, in part to concentrate resources on the Copeland by-election on the same day, and also because local Conservatives want to focus their efforts on the nearby metro Mayor race in the West Midlands.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
Exactly.
It was the spectacular failure of negotiations combined with the well-reasoned arguments of people like Gove that convinced me and other moderate Conservatives I know to switch from Remain to ultimately back Leave.
The irony is that it was Cameron's botched and failed attempt at reform that demonstrated that the EU was incapable of reform. In which case it was either accept it as it is and will be, or leave.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
That analysis is valid only if you think that the renegotiation was the end of the reform process. It wasn't, it was the beginning.
In any case, if you don't get everything you want, you sometimes have to accept that, if the alternative appears worse.
We'll find out in around three years whether the alternative is worse, at least in the short-term.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Or that Jeremy Corbyn thinks this is death or glory.
At the last election and at the referendum it was more instructive to watch where the leaders went to campaign than to read the polls. The theory was that if the leader campaigns in places that are supposed shoe ins, they are in trouble.
Camerons open air address/beg just before the referendum is one example.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Would you say the same about May going to Copeland? I still think Labour will win both but there is increasingly little doubt about which one is at risk.
No - I don't think Copeland is a must-win for the Tories - arguably ok to be close and allow JCs position to be strengthened.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Back in the day, when Labour was run by professionals, you could take that as a reasonable pointer that they would be going to win. But now, what they reckon and what the situation is could be two wholly different things.
That said, I've said for a while that the value was in laying UKIP and I've no reason to change my mind.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
Dave pretended that the EU was reformable. Any 12 year old with a recent history book can see that is a fantasy. Its core mission is unwavering. No amount of financial or human damage will deter it. Our divergent national culture and interest was inevitably going to blow us out of the EU at some point - we'll not suffer being in a superstate. Dave was essentially cornered into offering the referendum. He didn't want to. He wanted that nasty EU problem that had ruined the careers of his predecessors to go away. The intellectually honest amongst us recognise reform was never really on the table. At all. (Even I might have voted for a 2-speed EU!). Dave pretended it was. He pretended he had achieved something in his wee pretendy negotiations. Given that reality the only choice we faced was IN or OUT. He took us for fools and then tried to bully us and scare us. His place in history won't be what it otherwise was. Serves him right.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said he wanted to stay in the EU, but only if it reformed. When he failed to secure reform, he said that we had to stay in on pain of WWIII.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
That analysis is valid only if you think that the renegotiation was the end of the reform process. It wasn't, it was the beginning.
In any case, if you don't get everything you want, you sometimes have to accept that, if the alternative appears worse.
We'll find out in around three years whether the alternative is worse, at least in the short-term.
Except this was spun as the end of the reform process, that we got what we wanted, that this was it and now we will be happy ever after. This wasn't spun as the start of negotiations and nor would that be realistic since the EU wants to continue ratcheting in the other direction.
If automation leads to mass unemployment with no universal basic income to ease the pain funded by a robot tax there will be not even the basics most people got in the Soviet Union let alone the goods they can now afford when employed under pre automation capitalism
Automation has increased for a couple of centuries, yet more people are employed than ever in the UK, and in a vastly increased range of jobs. Whilst some occupations have died out, many more have been created.
That is the experience of the past. Some people lose jobs as an occupation dies, but within a generation - and often within a few years - more occupations are created. These new roles are often very similar to the previous ones.
The argument of many on here is that some disruptive force - often AI - will reduce the number of roles. It may, but there are issues.
Firstly, we don't have true AI. We're doing the 'easy' things; and we're nowhere nearer passing the Turing Test (sorry, Sean) or solving AI-complete problems. Much of the so-called AI we have is shallow and, frankly, thick. Smoke and mirrors.
Secondly, technology without true AI - and perhaps even with it - is brittle and inflexible. It can do something brilliantly as long as it is within the scope of its programming, but behaviour can be undefined if it goes outside that scope.
Thirdly, cost. The lack of flexibility adds cost. If you want a task performed a million times identically, then automation is brilliant. If you want it done slightly differently ten thousand of those times, then automation becomes much more difficult and expensive. Hence why some car makers are moving people back onto production lines.
Fourthly, Moore's Law. Much of the automation we have seen has relied on increased processor tech. As processors have doubled in speed every eighteen months, engineers have been able to throw clock cycles (*) at solving problems. However Moore's Law is becoming increasingly stretched, and each generation's improvements costlier and harder. Tasks that can be parallelised can be accelerated using GPU-style tech, but that too is getting harder. And besides, not all problems can be parallelised.
The pessimists are not only ignoring the lessons of the past; they're far too optimistic on the current state of the technology. (**) That does not mean there will be a big-bang change - say AI-complete problems being solved - but I wouldn't bet on it in the near future.
(*) A poor metric, but never mind. (**) The media are mostly to blame for this. Companies over-promote their tech, and journalists just regurgitate the nonsense.
Report from Stoke on ConHome seems to say Lab 1st LDems 2nd
Wouldn't surprise me, UKIP are finished as a political project. Should have gone out with a bang after the Brexit referendum, claimed victory and dissolved. Now they're going to go out with a whimper instead.
I think if they do now fade away the Tories will be the net beneficiaries overall.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
Exactly.
It was the spectacular failure of negotiations combined with the well-reasoned arguments of people like Gove that convinced me and other moderate Conservatives I know to switch from Remain to ultimately back Leave.
The irony is that it was Cameron's botched and failed attempt at reform that demonstrated that the EU was incapable of reform. In which case it was either accept it as it is and will be, or leave.
The EU was not going to reform. Simpletons could have worked that out. What Dave did was to formalise our special relationship with it whereas previously we had only informally done this or not done that. His deal put into treaty or would have, those opt-outs.
But this is all pre-June 23rd chat. We shall see what transpires and what new deal we get as the months and years tick by.
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
That's true. Lots of myths about currency and money. Another one you regularly encounter is that if a good is displayed at a certain price in a shop, the shop has to sell you it at that price. That's false. The vendor can sell it the product at any price they choose, regardless of what is shown on the ticket. They can also choose not to sell it at all.
No, it is NOT true. How it works is: if you are sued on a debt and your defence is that you have offered payment in full and it has been refused (a defence of tender), the defence only works if 1.the offer was made in legal tender and 2. you pay the full sum into court. You are conflating 1. and 2.
Your second point is also a bit more complicated than you think.
Edit to add: the "no £50 notes" thing is a red herring because what the shop is doing here is to decline to enter into a contract on the basis of payment by a £50 note. No contract -> no debt arises in the first place.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
Dave pretended that the EU was reformable. Any 12 year old with a recent history book can see that is a fantasy. Its core mission is unwavering. No amount of financial or human damage will deter it. Our divergent national culture and interest was inevitably going to blow us out of the EU at some point - we'll not suffer being in a superstate. Dave was essentially cornered into offering the referendum. He didn't want to. He wanted that nasty EU problem that had ruined the careers of his predecessors to go away. The intellectually honest amongst us recognise reform was never really on the table. At all. (Even I might have voted for a 2-speed EU!). Dave pretended it was. He pretended he had achieved something in his wee pretendy negotiations. Given that reality the only choice we faced was IN or OUT. He took us for fools and then tried to bully us and scare us. His place in history won't be what it otherwise was. Serves him right.
Currently, my expectation is that his place in history will be that, as well as being the best PM apart from Maggie for half a century, he was right about Brexit. But we shall see how the negotiations pan out. At present, it's not looking good, since our EU friends seem to be tilting towards a 'cut off the Eurozone's nose to spite the UK's face' position. We have to hope that either that is bluff, or that wiser counsels will prevail.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Back in the day, when Labour was run by professionals, you could take that as a reasonable pointer that they would be going to win. But now, what they reckon and what the situation is could be two wholly different things.
That said, I've said for a while that the value was in laying UKIP and I've no reason to change my mind.
You make a fair point. Never underestimate just how inept the Labour leadership team is.
He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
And he was right. The EU does need reform. It could start with being honest about where it is heading and dare to use the "Federal" word openly.
to the best of my recollection it has been honest, it's UK politicans who have not been honest with the electorate as to where they are taking us.
I think the EU needs to admit that becoming a Federal state is its ultimate goal with nations being reduced to states within the Federal structure rather than edging on a bit with "ever closer union".
Proper external borders properly policed would be a good idea too
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
That analysis is valid only if you think that the renegotiation was the end of the reform process. It wasn't, it was the beginning.
In any case, if you don't get everything you want, you sometimes have to accept that, if the alternative appears worse.
We'll find out in around three years whether the alternative is worse, at least in the short-term.
Quite right. Dave got it in writing that we need not submit to any further integration. He essentially secured agreement for a two-speed Europe - something once unthinkable amongst EU fundamentalists. With that victory in his back pocket, who knows what other goodies he could have wrangled for us at a later date.
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
That's true. Lots of myths about currency and money. Another one you regularly encounter is that if a good is displayed at a certain price in a shop, the shop has to sell you it at that price. That's false. The vendor can sell it the product at any price they choose, regardless of what is shown on the ticket. They can also choose not to sell it at all.
No, it is NOT true. How it works is: if you are sued on a debt and your defence is that you have offered payment in full and it has been refused (a defence of tender), the defence only works if 1.the offer was made in legal tender and 2. you pay the full sum into court. You are conflating 1. and 2.
Your second point is also a bit more complicated than you think.
Edit to add: the "no £50 notes" thing is a red herring because what the shop is doing here is to decline to enter into a contract on the basis of payment by a £50 note. No contract -> no debt arises in the first place.
I think you are replying to Philip's point not mine? There are quoting issues on the thread I think.
People placing a lot of confidence in the Labour ground game being confident of winning. But lets not forget, they were incredibly slow to spot the shift in support up in Scotland towards the SNP.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
That analysis is valid only if you think that the renegotiation was the end of the reform process. It wasn't, it was the beginning.
It was the most he could get when we might vote to Leave. Why on earth should there have been any further reform if we had voted to Remain?
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
That's true. Lots of myths about currency and money. Another one you regularly encounter is that if a good is displayed at a certain price in a shop, the shop has to sell you it at that price. That's false. The vendor can sell it the product at any price they choose, regardless of what is shown on the ticket. They can also choose not to sell it at all.
No, it is NOT true. How it works is: if you are sued on a debt and your defence is that you have offered payment in full and it has been refused (a defence of tender), the defence only works if 1.the offer was made in legal tender and 2. you pay the full sum into court. You are conflating 1. and 2.
Your second point is also a bit more complicated than you think.
Edit to add: the "no £50 notes" thing is a red herring because what the shop is doing here is to decline to enter into a contract on the basis of payment by a £50 note. No contract -> no debt arises in the first place.
I think you are replying to Philip's point not mine? There are quoting issues on the thread I think.
Yes (but you said "that's true"). apols for confusion.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Or that Jeremy Corbyn thinks this is death or glory.
At the last election and at the referendum it was more instructive to watch where the leaders went to campaign than to read the polls. The theory was that if the leader campaigns in places that are supposed shoe ins, they are in trouble.
Camerons open air address/beg just before the referendum is one example.
Seems that theory has gone out of fashion
The difference being that in 2015 there were 650 seats to target and it was an existential battle (for a party leader defeat means resignation) whereas now there is 2 and unless you get involved directly defeat can be written off.
Miss Plato, wouldn't that make everyone who isn't bisexual a sexist?
Still, accusing someone of bigotry saves having to actually think of an argument against them.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. AV should've been voted against because it's a demented cocktail of failure and remorse, not to kick Clegg.
AV leads to loneliness, depression, and Ed Miliband.
This was Clegg's folly, far more than tuition fees. AV has never been LD policy - STV is. This meant Clegg couldn't even take much of his own Party with him into the Yes to AV camp.
The problem was the Conservatives couldn't offer a referendum on STV just in case it got passed (this ending any hope of a future Conservative majority and that was an existential threat to a party whose primary raison d'etre is the acquisition and maintenance of power) and Clegg thought he couldn't sell the Coalition deal to his Party without some sop to electoral reform (the LDs primary raison d'etre).
Oddly enough, it probably wouldn't and he didn't have to.
The crushing defeat of AV hasn't taken STV off the agenda of course and a future LD leader in a future Coalition negotiation situation might take the view that STV for all elections except Westminster without a referendum might be the glue that seals the deal.
Which is what they currently have. We exist in a currency union - the English Pound, the Scottish pound, the NI pound, the Manx pound and the pounds of the Bailiwicks.
No there's only one pound sterling - as backed by the Bank of England.
The Scots banks are entitled to print their own Mickey Mouse money by having enough real money to back it up
Yes that's right. In fact I believe Scottish notes are not even legal tender, merely legal currency.
Legal tender is a bank of England £5, £10 & £20 note, but not a £50 note from memory.
Legal tender is a fairly meaningless term in this country. It is simply what is legally accepted by courts - there is no requirement for businesses or other private individuals to accept legal tender. So a business can refuse to accept £50 notes (and many do) but they can just as easily refuse to accept £10 notes too, just not many do.
That's true. Lots of myths about currency and money. Another one you regularly encounter is that if a good is displayed at a certain price in a shop, the shop has to sell you it at that price. That's false. The vendor can sell it the product at any price they choose, regardless of what is shown on the ticket. They can also choose not to sell it at all.
No, it is NOT true. How it works is: if you are sued on a debt and your defence is that you have offered payment in full and it has been refused (a defence of tender), the defence only works if 1.the offer was made in legal tender and 2. you pay the full sum into court. You are conflating 1. and 2.
Your second point is also a bit more complicated than you think.
Edit to add: the "no £50 notes" thing is a red herring because what the shop is doing here is to decline to enter into a contract on the basis of payment by a £50 note. No contract -> no debt arises in the first place.
I think you are replying to Philip's point not mine? There are quoting issues on the thread I think.
Yes (but you said "that's true"). apols for confusion.
On topic, for all the rhetoric of the Tories being the party of the rich, they appear from the bar graph above to be the only truly egalitarian party - drawing equal support across the demographic.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Or that Jeremy Corbyn thinks this is death or glory.
At the last election and at the referendum it was more instructive to watch where the leaders went to campaign than to read the polls. The theory was that if the leader campaigns in places that are supposed shoe ins, they are in trouble.
Camerons open air address/beg just before the referendum is one example.
Seems that theory has gone out of fashion
The difference being that in 2015 there were 650 seats to target and it was an existential battle (for a party leader defeat means resignation) whereas now there is 2 and unless you get involved directly defeat can be written off.
Yes, the fact there are only two seats in play does negate that point I guess.
Sturgeon is about to light the taratan touch paper.
So, what's the currency?
The Euro. That's the only one that makes any sense, unless they really are mad and intend to use the pound without any BoE support for Scottish banks.
They can't adopt the Euro without first having their own currency and going through the stages of Economic and Monetary Union. One of those is a deficit of less than 3%. Even with the help of those creative people at Goldman Sachs, they'd be miles off that target.
A further problem is that a Scottish Pound would probably be a very weak currency. Pegging it to the pound would simply invite speculators to try to break the peg (a one-way bet). The speculators would win.
He got his job as leader on a false prospectus - as a Eurosceptic. His emergent Europhilia completely reversed my view of him.
I've no idea where this bizarre myth comes from. He was completely consistent. He never claimed to be a BOOer. He always, and quite rightly, said that the EU needed to reform itself.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
He said the EU needed to reform. he gave an excellent speech at Bloomberg outlining what needed to be done. He opened negotiations and then got virtually nothing that he previously argued for.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
That analysis is valid only if you think that the renegotiation was the end of the reform process. It wasn't, it was the beginning.
In any case, if you don't get everything you want, you sometimes have to accept that, if the alternative appears worse.
We'll find out in around three years whether the alternative is worse, at least in the short-term.
You don't need to persuade me on that point. I was vocal about supporting Remain, and why. However, the campaign that Cameron ran did his side no favours. And while it might not have been the end of the reform process, frankly, so little was offered that the EU might as well have been trying to push Britain out. It was quite clear that the EU leaders had absolutely no intention of addressing the Union's failings, which is why the negotiations ended up being about giving Britain a few trinkets (which inevitably was going to be highly limited otherwise everyone would try it), rather than about making a more successful, competitive and responsive Union.
It was the most he could get when we might vote to Leave. Why on earth should there have been any further reform if we had voted to Remain?
Because, quite rightly, he didn't propose his suggested reforms as being something just in the UK's interests, but in the wider EU's interests. It was always going to be a long, slow process - the EU doesn't turn on a sixpence.
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Was Cameron:
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
He had to lie.
He needed to ensure the referendum wasn't about him.
It would have encouraged non Tories to vote Leave to get rid of Dave.
He did the same during the Indyref
In the same way Osborne lied when he said he was 'Eurosceptic'?
Eurosceptic isn't synonymous with being a Leaver/BOOer
Unless the only options being available are Brexit vs Superstate. Both Dave AND the EU fucked up big time. The EU for being so utterly inflexible and intransigent - did they really want to make being in the EU something so annoying that the majority of its 2nd economy and contributor could no longer stomach? Do the Brussels apparatchiks prefer Superstate without us to 2-speed and us still in? Who knows. Maybe the French wanted us out and blocked all reform. Can't blame them! Dave for failing to sniff the zeitgeist and making a serious effort to get reform or persuade the EU that we would otherwise actually have to leave. He came to a gunfight with a knife and failed to represent the pre-existing will of the people.
Stephen Hawkes Jeremy Corbyn on his way to Stoke apparently - time to send in the big guns
Must have been told about Stoke's famous Man-hole Covers Museum....
In truth it means that Labour reckon they are safe to win.
Would you say the same about May going to Copeland? I still think Labour will win both but there is increasingly little doubt about which one is at risk.
No - I don't think Copeland is a must-win for the Tories - arguably ok to be close and allow JCs position to be strengthened.
Not suggesting that. Just suggesting that putting the PM up there suggests the Tories think that they are at least in with a shout and, just possibly, something better than that.
You don't need to persuade me on that point. I was vocal about supporting Remain, and why. However, the campaign that Cameron ran did his side no favours. And while it might not have been the end of the reform process, frankly, so little was offered that the EU might as well have been trying to push Britain out. It was quite clear that the EU leaders had absolutely no intention of addressing the Union's failings, which is why the negotiations ended up being about giving Britain a few trinkets (which inevitably was going to be highly limited otherwise everyone would try it), rather than about making a more successful, competitive and responsive Union.
I think our EU friends thought they'd bent over backwards to help. They badly misjudged it, and (in their own interests) should have listened much more carefully to what Cameron said in his Bloomberg speech. They still should, for that matter.
But yes, I agree the campaign wasn't great. Having said that, it was greatly hobbled by Labour being AWOL.
Labour’s difficulties have been enhanced as the Conservatives have pulled out of the race in all but name, in part to concentrate resources on the Copeland by-election on the same day, and also because local Conservatives want to focus their efforts on the nearby metro Mayor race in the West Midlands.
Maybe so. And look what happened to him. An ex-prime minister. See how it works?
Was Cameron:
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
He had to lie.
He needed to ensure the referendum wasn't about him.
It would have encouraged non Tories to vote Leave to get rid of Dave.
He did the same during the Indyref
In the same way Osborne lied when he said he was 'Eurosceptic'?
Eurosceptic isn't synonymous with being a Leaver/BOOer
Unless the only options being available are Brexit vs Superstate. Both Dave AND the EU fucked up big time. The EU for being so utterly inflexible and intransigent - did they really want to make being in the UK something so annoying that the majority of its 2nd economy and contributor could no longer stomach? Do the Brussels apparatchiks prefer Superstate without us to 2-speed and us still in? Who knows. Maybe the French wanted us out and blocked all reform. Can't blame them! Dave for failing to sniff the zeitgeist and making a serious effort to get reform or persuade the EU that we would otherwise actually have to leave. He came to a gunfight with a knife and failed to represent the pre-existing will of the people.
It wasn't even a knife. A plastic spoon from a roadside burger van at best.
It was the most he could get when we might vote to Leave. Why on earth should there have been any further reform if we had voted to Remain?
Because, quite rightly, he didn't propose his suggested reforms as being something just in the UK's interests, but in the wider EU's interests. It was always going to be a long, slow process - the EU doesn't turn on a sixpence.
The EU doesn't turn. At all. We only suspected that before Cameron's "negotiation"; we know it for certain now.
Miss Plato, wouldn't that make everyone who isn't bisexual a sexist?
Still, accusing someone of bigotry saves having to actually think of an argument against them.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. AV should've been voted against because it's a demented cocktail of failure and remorse, not to kick Clegg.
AV leads to loneliness, depression, and Ed Miliband.
Didn't someone publish a study on here the other day that showed that had the 2015 election been run under AV, there'd have been virtually no change from FPTP, but that the Tories would have had a marginally larger majority? (Presumably because most people inclined to vote tactically have pre-transferred their votes in seats where it'd make a difference)
But there would have been fewer wasted votes, less people feeling disenfranchised.
Comments
PS Cameron discovering that Cameron was a lying git doesn't really qualify as "events"....
a) the only person in the UK who thought he wouldn't have to resign if he lost the Referendum, or
b) a lying git who knew he'd resign if he lost the Referendum - but said he wouldn't?
If you vote Socialist solidly for 40 years you end up achieving the promise of socialism. The USSR, DDR, Venezuela and Cuba the same. Pre-Deng China too. Funny that.
He needed to ensure the referendum wasn't about him.
It would have encouraged non Tories to vote Leave to get rid of Dave.
He did the same during the Indyref
He as a matter of real politik couldn't say he would resign if he lost. No politician would answer in the affirmative to such a bear trap of a question.
http://www.conservativehome.com/video/2017/02/watch-is-labour-on-the-rocks-in-stoke.html
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/diane-abbott-text-row-how-it-racist-or-sexist-say-you-dont-fancy-someone-asks-julia-hartley
And Clegg immediately resigned.
Oh, wait.
Still, accusing someone of bigotry saves having to actually think of an argument against them.
Mr. Eagles, indeed. AV should've been voted against because it's a demented cocktail of failure and remorse, not to kick Clegg.
AV leads to loneliness, depression, and Ed Miliband.
It is fascinating watching history being reinvented in real time right in front of you, especially since the internet makes it trivially easy to debunk the myths people create.
That's barking mad.
Davis wasn't necessarily being sexist. He was, however, guilty of being deeply ungallant. He could have phrased his response in an amusing, yet more chivalrous, way.
It is not in the bag for Labour, Jeremy has to go win or lose.
Automation leads to innovation and people fill new roles previously thought to be impossible or unnecessary.
That was the point at which he should have either said (1) look, the negotiation's failed but you know what, the EU's a good thing in its own right and we should be members anyway; we'll keep fighting for reform. Or, (2), if the EU won't reform then I'm going to have to back Leave.
Instead, he ran a middle course which failed to satisfy either side and, probably in consequence, lost.
Remember you've had PBers saying recently the Tories won in 2015 in spite of Dave.
Labour’s difficulties have been enhanced as the Conservatives have pulled out of the race in all but name, in part to concentrate resources on the Copeland by-election on the same day, and also because local Conservatives want to focus their efforts on the nearby metro Mayor race in the West Midlands.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/02/will-labour-lose-stoke
It was the spectacular failure of negotiations combined with the well-reasoned arguments of people like Gove that convinced me and other moderate Conservatives I know to switch from Remain to ultimately back Leave.
The irony is that it was Cameron's botched and failed attempt at reform that demonstrated that the EU was incapable of reform. In which case it was either accept it as it is and will be, or leave.
In any case, if you don't get everything you want, you sometimes have to accept that, if the alternative appears worse.
We'll find out in around three years whether the alternative is worse, at least in the short-term.
Camerons open air address/beg just before the referendum is one example.
Seems that theory has gone out of fashion
That said, I've said for a while that the value was in laying UKIP and I've no reason to change my mind.
That is the experience of the past. Some people lose jobs as an occupation dies, but within a generation - and often within a few years - more occupations are created. These new roles are often very similar to the previous ones.
The argument of many on here is that some disruptive force - often AI - will reduce the number of roles. It may, but there are issues.
Firstly, we don't have true AI. We're doing the 'easy' things; and we're nowhere nearer passing the Turing Test (sorry, Sean) or solving AI-complete problems. Much of the so-called AI we have is shallow and, frankly, thick. Smoke and mirrors.
Secondly, technology without true AI - and perhaps even with it - is brittle and inflexible. It can do something brilliantly as long as it is within the scope of its programming, but behaviour can be undefined if it goes outside that scope.
Thirdly, cost. The lack of flexibility adds cost. If you want a task performed a million times identically, then automation is brilliant. If you want it done slightly differently ten thousand of those times, then automation becomes much more difficult and expensive. Hence why some car makers are moving people back onto production lines.
Fourthly, Moore's Law. Much of the automation we have seen has relied on increased processor tech. As processors have doubled in speed every eighteen months, engineers have been able to throw clock cycles (*) at solving problems. However Moore's Law is becoming increasingly stretched, and each generation's improvements costlier and harder. Tasks that can be parallelised can be accelerated using GPU-style tech, but that too is getting harder. And besides, not all problems can be parallelised.
The pessimists are not only ignoring the lessons of the past; they're far too optimistic on the current state of the technology. (**) That does not mean there will be a big-bang change - say AI-complete problems being solved - but I wouldn't bet on it in the near future.
(*) A poor metric, but never mind.
(**) The media are mostly to blame for this. Companies over-promote their tech, and journalists just regurgitate the nonsense.
But this is all pre-June 23rd chat. We shall see what transpires and what new deal we get as the months and years tick by.
Your second point is also a bit more complicated than you think.
Edit to add: the "no £50 notes" thing is a red herring because what the shop is doing here is to decline to enter into a contract on the basis of payment by a £50 note. No contract -> no debt arises in the first place.
https://twitter.com/sportingindex/status/831156092017242114
Proper external borders properly policed would be a good idea too
A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban
The problem was the Conservatives couldn't offer a referendum on STV just in case it got passed (this ending any hope of a future Conservative majority and that was an existential threat to a party whose primary raison d'etre is the acquisition and maintenance of power) and Clegg thought he couldn't sell the Coalition deal to his Party without some sop to electoral reform (the LDs primary raison d'etre).
Oddly enough, it probably wouldn't and he didn't have to.
The crushing defeat of AV hasn't taken STV off the agenda of course and a future LD leader in a future Coalition negotiation situation might take the view that STV for all elections except Westminster without a referendum might be the glue that seals the deal.
Like me, Joe Root lives and grew up in Dore, Sheffield.
Both Dave AND the EU fucked up big time.
The EU for being so utterly inflexible and intransigent - did they really want to make being in the EU something so annoying that the majority of its 2nd economy and contributor could no longer stomach? Do the Brussels apparatchiks prefer Superstate without us to 2-speed and us still in? Who knows. Maybe the French wanted us out and blocked all reform. Can't blame them!
Dave for failing to sniff the zeitgeist and making a serious effort to get reform or persuade the EU that we would otherwise actually have to leave. He came to a gunfight with a knife and failed to represent the pre-existing will of the people.
But yes, I agree the campaign wasn't great. Having said that, it was greatly hobbled by Labour being AWOL.
A plastic spoon from a roadside burger van at best.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-john-bickley-racist-twitter_uk_58a1ad16e4b094a129ece4c2