...Half a dozen of the lobby press weren't invited to the gaggle - they aren't banned from anything. Nor from saying anything....Trump just hasn't asked half a dozen to the prom - it's naughty step time for them right now.
Ah, I see. By the PlatoSaid definition, "not being invited" is not the same as "being banned".
There's probably a similar story with conferences. Anecdotally, the Ethereum (fintech) developers' conference was previously in London then Shanghai, and the obvious next place would have been a US financial centre, like NY or Chicago. The organizers floated that it would be in "the Americas", I guess to see what the response would be like, and there was enough hostility to making people have to go through US immigration to get there that they ended up scheduling it in Cancún, which is handy for the East Coast US but still on the Free World side of the wall.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
Selectively inviting news outlets and excluding those the president doesn't like? What's the difference?
Positive and negative reinforcement. Can be used to achieve the same result, have very different mechanisms and incidental consequences.
Think the difference between Germany (everything that is not permitted is banned) and Britain (everything which is not banned is permitted)
Haven't we had this discussion before? I though the concept that in German law everything that is not permitted is banned, but in English&Welsh law everything which is not banned is permitted, was a myth.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
Actually I have been to Stoke. The best thing in Stoke Central is the road out of it! A beautiful big multi-lane road
What an unpleasant comment - and so typical from a 'Liberal' 'democrat'.
Significant boundary changes in 2010 which added Keswick and three rural wards to the constituency. The present seat would have been Tory in both 1983 and 1987 - and too close to call in 1992.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
The irony being that having left to preserve the Pound and avoid Schengen, if we have to rejoin .....
I'm sorry, I'm struggling with irony here, unless you're doing it in an Alanis Morissette sense. Why would we have to rejoin?
The dream of the quisling Lib Dems is that the country will fail after leaving and we'll have to ask to rejoin. Thereby being forced into the EMU and Schengen. Far-fetched, I know but let them dream. What I find most funny is that in wishing for this outcome they are actively hoping that the UK will suffer in some manner, and yet they also wonder why some consider them to be traitors.
I'd have thought the main thing putting off British tourists was the very strong dollar/weak pound at the moment.
I had been planning on visiting the US to see the total solar eclipse in August but have now decided against it, partly for personal reasons, but partly also because of worries about the way things are going under the Trump administration. Apart from US immigration concerns, full scale riots, for example, would seem not unlikely in the summer.
Significant boundary changes in 2010 which added Keswick and three rural wards to the constituency. The present seat would have been Tory in both 1983 and 1987 - and too close to call in 1992.
Ah - we were waiting to be told how insignificant the Copeland result was in the greater scheme of things. No doubt all 26 Labour MPs with majorities under 2500 will be much re-assured.
Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?
No as the two audiences don't overlap - yet his audience is the upcoming generation - and he's started to join forces with others on Twitter and YouTube. It's a powerful coalition that's forming now.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
You have obviously never been to stoke.
As rather well put by an Asian gentleman when interviewed by John Harris in the run up to EU referundum and asked what if all these terrible economic things occur post brexit...He pointed to stoke around him and said how much worse coild it get.
jaywick?
I have been to Stoke a dozen times over the last 30 years, sometimes work related, and sometimes social. I first visited in 1984 when weekending with a friend at Keele.
Stoke's best days were clearly behind it even then, but it still has significant challenges. The move from manufacturing to wharehousing and service industries is stressful everywhere.
The main employer is Bet365. Leaving the Single market closes off leverage to get the EU to open up to our numerous online bookies (a problem for holidaying PBers at times!). That is not going to happen now, unless our bookies get an EU location and EU government to push on their behalf. If such liberalisation occurs it will no longer benefit Stokes biggest employer.
...Half a dozen of the lobby press weren't invited to the gaggle - they aren't banned from anything. Nor from saying anything....Trump just hasn't asked half a dozen to the prom - it's naughty step time for them right now.
Ah, I see. By the PlatoSaid definition, "not being invited" is not the same as "being banned".
It isnt a divine right - other outlets got a shot instead. Obama did it himself. What's the outrage based on?
Not wishing to upstage Roger, but presumably other PBers are allowed to forecast their Oscar winners. Mine are as follows for the 25 awards on offer, showing the best decimal betting odds currently available:
Best Picture : La La Land 1.2 Best Director: Damian Chazelle (La La Land) 1.06 Best Writing: Moonlight 1.2 Best Actor: Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea) 1.8 Best Actress: Emma Stone (La La Land) 1.17 Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight) 1.2 Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis (Fences) 1.05 Best Adapted Screenplay: Moonlight 1.20 Best Animated Feature Film: Zootopia 1.25 Best Animated Short Film: Piper 1.29 Best Cinematography: La La Land 1.20 Best Costume Design: La La Land 1.73 Best Documentary Feature: Made in America 1.17 Best Short Documentary: Extremis 2.5 OR The White Helmets 2.6 (Joint Picks) Best Film Editing: La La Land : 1.17 Best Foreign Language Film: The Salesman 1.91 Best Live Action Short Film: Ennemis Interieurs 2.0 Best Make-up: Star Trek Beyond 1.44 Best Original Score: La La Land 1.13 Best Original Screenplay: Manchester by the Sea 1.72 Best Original Song: City of Stars 1.2 Best Production Design: La La Land 1.08 Best Sound Editing: Hacksaw Ridge 1.57 Best Sound Mixing: La La Land 1.17 Best Visual Effects: 1.22
Although I am very confident of having identified over half the winners, this is not on account of my having any specialised knowledge, but rather because of the 25 categories 23 have short odds-on favourites making it virtually impossible to show a profit. In fact I calculate that I would need to be correct in at least 18 categories to at least break even. Accordingly I will NOT be placing any bets.
O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!
It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.
Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.
He held briefings with selected invitation lists, excluding organisations he didn't like.
All Presidents do that.
That is very different from barring selected organisations from the daily press briefing.
I don't see why.
I think White House press secretary Sean Spicer sums it up best:
And Trump hasn't, AIUI, banned anyone from the daily briefing.
This seems to suggest that the daily press briefing was cancelled and some other kind of briefing done with certain organisations banned from attending.
"Banned" doesn't seem to fit with the description of what was done, as it implies that the excluded ones were selected for exclusion; the description says that the included ones were selected for inclusion.
The dream of the quisling Lib Dems is that the country will fail after leaving and we'll have to ask to rejoin. Thereby being forced into the EMU and Schengen. Far-fetched, I know but let them dream. What I find most funny is that in wishing for this outcome they are actively hoping that the UK will suffer in some manner, and yet they also wonder why some consider them to be traitors.
A few points...
1) I am not and never have been a LibDem. 2) I do not hope that the UK will fail. I believe that it is doing itself irreparable harm - completely different 3) Because of (2) I am of the opinion that the UK will have no choice but to rejoin in 20 or 30 years time
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
I do not hope that the country will be economically ruined. I am convinced that the UK is harming itself, its economy and its people.
In France, Green (as in this country, left-wing) candidate Jadot was withdrawn in favour of Hamon. Unfortunately for Hamon he was on about 2% and doesn't carry the personal weight of Bayrou.
The dream of the quisling Lib Dems is that the country will fail after leaving and we'll have to ask to rejoin. Thereby being forced into the EMU and Schengen. Far-fetched, I know but let them dream. What I find most funny is that in wishing for this outcome they are actively hoping that the UK will suffer in some manner, and yet they also wonder why some consider them to be traitors.
A few points...
1) I am not and never have been a LibDem. 2) I do not hope that the UK will fail. I believe that it is doing itself irreparable harm - completely different 3) Because of (2) I am of the opinion that the UK will have no choice but to rejoin in 20 or 30 years time
Very true, the Queensway "D-Road" is indeed the A500, the A50 is the old road which runs NW>SE from Sandbach through Stoke and out towards Utoxeter and Derby. South of Stoke it's now a nice dual carriageway.
Casino - it always seems to be the way that successful betting exploits are celebrated in terms of spending one's ill-gotten gains on luxuries, in your case on a holiday with Mrs Casino in Thailand. With me, it's on buying a case of good wine or spending a small fortune going to the West End theatre followed by dinner, etc. We never seem to equate winning with having that old creaking boiler fixed or whatever.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened to my GE2015 winnings. I was deep in the agreeable process of working out the optimal asset allocation strategy for my investment in the Nabavi Claret Fund, when Higher Authority intervened and decreed that the proceeds should be diverted to replacing our old garden tractor.
Selectively inviting news outlets and excluding those the president doesn't like? What's the difference?
Positive and negative reinforcement. Can be used to achieve the same result, have very different mechanisms and incidental consequences.
Think the difference between Germany (everything that is not permitted is banned) and Britain (everything which is not banned is permitted)
Haven't we had this discussion before? I though the concept that in German law everything that is not permitted is banned, but in English&Welsh law everything which is not banned is permitted, was a myth.
7 out of 9 of Lucian Fletcher's tips have been cut in price from yesterday:
Danny Kennedy shortened to 1-5 from 3-10 Sandra Overend shorten to 4-6 from Evens Jemma Dolan shortened to 4-9 from 15-8 ! McCandless shortened to 14-1 from 33-1 John Stewart shortened to 6-4 from 2-1 Alex Attwood shortened to 11-4 from 7-2 Nichola Mallon shortened to 8-11 from Evens
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
A debate, maybe BBC4, between a federalist like Verhofstadt or poss. Heseltine and a Europhobe like Farage or Cash would at least enable the UK population to understand the good the EU has done for us since 1973, not just its less ideal aspects. (An end to coastal discharges of raw sewage has been just one of hundreds of benefits. Essentially, Brussels has governed us less badly than Westminster has.
Let me guess, 95% of your 'faceless bureaucrats' got their jobs following a unanimous executive decision by the Council of Ministers, the other 5% by QMV. However, the UK would have voted to move to GMV
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
A debate, maybe BBC4, between a federalist like Verhofstadt or poss. Heseltine and a Europhobe like Farage or Cash would at least enable the UK population to understand the good the EU has done for us since 1973, not just its less ideal aspects. (An end to coastal discharges of raw sewage has been just one of hundreds of benefits. Essentially, Brussels has governed us less badly than Westminster has.
Let me guess, 95% of your 'faceless bureaucrats' got their jobs following a unanimous executive decision by the Council of Ministers, the other 5% by QMV. However, the UK would have voted to move to GMV
7 out of 9 of Lucian Fletcher's tips have been cut in price from yesterday:
Danny Kennedy shortened to 1-5 from 3-10 Sandra Overend shorten to 4-6 from Evens Jemma Dolan shortened to 4-9 from 15-8 ! McCandless shortened to 14-1 from 33-1 John Stewart shortened to 6-4 from 2-1 Alex Attwood shortened to 11-4 from 7-2 Nichola Mallon shortened to 8-11 from Evens
who are they , potential Labour leaders no doubt as I have never heard of any of them.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
Some people just will never, ever vote no matter the circunstances. I think the matter is settled for the next 30/40 years perhaps once the A50 process has finished. I will look forward to campaigning for us to rejoin once & when the question arises, but it is settled for now - certainly not eternity mind.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
I do not hope that the country will be economically ruined. I am convinced that the UK is harming itself, its economy and its people.
Personally I hope that Brexit is not a disaster.
In that case, you are a very lucky lady because your hopes are about to become true.
To be fair, non of us 'Know' what will happen, amongst other things, natural disasters, War, and so on could all intervene. But we do know that trade destroys poverty and creates wealth, and is the biggest overarching route to long term prosperity. Out side the EU and out side the Customs Union, we are likely to get more of it, as there will be less obstacles to us trading with the 93% of the would's population outside the EU who account for 84% of global GDP.
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
The coalition ended less than two years ago but already it's ancient history, alongside Iraq and Margaret Thatcher; of relevance only to those who will never change their minds. So much has happened since.
But Labour will still go to great lengths in key constituencies to remind voters that the LibDems were 'the Tories little helpers'!
For those PBers fancying a bet on the Oscars, the secret might be to look out a few of Roger's longer priced picks, although I doubt he would promise to find a 100/1 winner as he sensationally succeeded in doing last year!
Selectively inviting news outlets and excluding those the president doesn't like? What's the difference?
Positive and negative reinforcement. Can be used to achieve the same result, have very different mechanisms and incidental consequences.
Think the difference between Germany (everything that is not permitted is banned) and Britain (everything which is not banned is permitted)
Haven't we had this discussion before? I though the concept that in German law everything that is not permitted is banned, but in English&Welsh law everything which is not banned is permitted, was a myth.
It's a joke. The third element is that in Switzerland everything that is not banned is mandatory. But it is a joke that illustrates a point.
Of course, if Mrs May secures us a good deal, and the transition is smooth, then the number of bitter Remainers will decline, and the LibDems edge here will be disappear. But if the next three and a half years feature a recession (almost irrespective of the ultimate cause), then it might swing the other way. We will see, of course, but I suspect were there an election today then the LDs would get around 12-13% of the popular vote, and would gain a few seats.
Which seats? The LibDems rising to 12-13% is more than offset by the Tories rising to 44%. So I guess we are restricted to looking at the LibDems nicking a couple off Labour? Once Article 50 is served, the LibDems are going to look like a Flat Earth Society, denying the political reality we live in. Harking back to a time when we didn't know we lived on a globe will make the UKIP stance of harking back to the golden age of the 50's look positively modern. The short-termism of the LibDems over Brexit is remarkable. How about some real policies instead? Something for the 2020's? When we are outside the EU...
I fear that MarqueeMark is spending too much time living in his own little blue bubble. It seems to have escaped his notice that on Thursday the Lib Dems took a seat from the Tories, almost in Mr Mark`s back yard. This is on top of the many that the Lib Dems have picked up from the Tories in Devon and Cornwall over the last few months.
The fact is that the Tories are doing lots of very unpleasant things both at county and district level - as a result of central Tory policy and their own ideology - and this is not liked.
At the same time, a lot of people voted Conservative in 2015, thinking that they were going to get lots more of that nice Mr Cameron, as he showed himself to be in the Coalition years. Instead, they have ended up with the very nasty Mrs May, whose only saving grace is that she is not Mr Corbyn.
The handful of doormats that Mr Mark helped get elected as MPs back in 2015 are far from popular.
You're right, that "doormat" Dr Sarah Wollaston is really worried that her 18,000 majority is at risk from losing a seat in Modbury....
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
And that 52-48 was for 2/3rds ofthe electorate so 35-32 might be a better way of looking at it.
The lazy might not vote, but if they become unemployed or seriously worse off they will change the atmosphere of debate. They might even be motivated to get of their backsides next time...
The 65% of people who chose not to vote last Thursday in stoke suggest otherwise.
The s**t has not hit the fan yet.
Unfortunately your desperate hope for the country to be economically ruined is not very endearing to a typical voter. Selling your country down the river for a faceless EU bureaucratic super-state is simply not sellable in the UK.
A debate, maybe BBC4, between a federalist like Verhofstadt or poss. Heseltine and a Europhobe like Farage or Cash would at least enable the UK population to understand the good the EU has done for us since 1973, not just its less ideal aspects. (An end to coastal discharges of raw sewage has been just one of hundreds of benefits. Essentially, Brussels has governed us less badly than Westminster has.
Let me guess, 95% of your 'faceless bureaucrats' got their jobs following a unanimous executive decision by the Council of Ministers, the other 5% by QMV. However, the UK would have voted to move to GMV
You mean like Clegg v Farage? We had that crap.
A debate has to be between two people of roughly equal ability when it comes to communicating with an audience and presenting the facts (as they see them) in a lively and interesting way. Ken Clarke, Heseltine or Verhofstadt come to mind - or even Caroline Lucas - Clegg doesn't.
For those PBers fancying a bet on the Oscars, the secret might be to look out a few of Roger's longer priced picks, although I doubt he would promise to find a 100/1 winner as he sensationally succeeded in doing last year!
Lib Dems playing the long game on Brexit, could well reap rewards in the long run as did their opposition to Iraq.
Did they really benefit from their opposition to Iraq? They could potentially benefit from opposing Brexit, but that will always be tempered by their role in the coalition.
The coalition ended less than two years ago but already it's ancient history, alongside Iraq and Margaret Thatcher; of relevance only to those who will never change their minds. So much has happened since.
But Labour will still go to great lengths in key constituencies to remind voters that the LibDems were 'the Tories little helpers'!
The way Brexit is going, it's Labour that are the Tories' little helpers!
Problem we have is that Corbyn can't be on the ballot paper - so he needs to resign. Getting him to do so is the hard bit. He's delusional enough to cite Copeland voting for a 7 year old Conservative government as voting against the establishment, so reality won't come into play.
Feels like we need a big shock. Unite coming out against him under Coyne, a financial scandal (can't have a sex scandal, he's already in the open about Diane Abbott...), proof he colluded with Hamas - SOMETHING. For the love of God, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
I disagree. Corbyn can't be deposed in what might be seen as a palace coup. The new leader will need the legitimacy of winning fair and square. I'm writing a piece on this for Total Politics.
Yes I agree. Another coup attempt will split the party when they need to be united. I think Corbyn will resign of his own accord once he knows he has a way of getting a preferred successor on the ballot. Even if he goes as late as 2018 - I still think that's plenty of time before the next election for a new leader to bed themselves in. I think most normal people will have forgotten about Corbyn provided he has stood down a least 12 months before the general election.
For the moderates to allow Corbyn's preferred successor onto the ballot would be moronic in the extreme. It'd simply repeat the mistake of 2015, with the huge risk of the same outcome.
Corbyn is stubborn, but for his beliefs not himself. I could easily see him taking the hit "I am not up to the job: here is someone who is" and the true believers who backed him in both 2015 and 2016 finding a new cause to rally behind.
I don't agree it would be stupid... If the moderates want power they need to get back to winning elections... Not attempting to keep people off the ballot.
Corbyn has a personal brand that may not translate to other similar politicians. He is also vulnerable on brexit - labour members I think will be open to a more forceful opposition to brexit. I also think many on the left would be a fairly big electoral improvement to Corbyn without being enormously different politically.
Bottom line. To win/do respectably at the next election - Labour must be a united party led by someone else. Both conditions must hold.
We thought we would do that too, and still might. However, you might find as we have, that when it comes down to it you don't really want to downsize too much (got to have room for visiting family and you have become used to having your own study, plus where where would we put all the books and treasured, inherited, furniture which we want to pass on to our son) and the finances of moving are horrendous (stamp duty alone would cost us nearly ten thousand if we stay in Sussex).
The idea of downsizing sounds good but we found unless we want to be really radical in our change of lifestyle (something that is actually quite scary for an older couple) or move a long way away (we considered Northumberland, Cumbria, the Netherlands and Portugal) the figures just don't stand up.
I watched a Jesse Ventura intv yesterday and had no idea about how he was shut out by the media. He's a fascinating character - I'd no idea he was a SEAL, Havard lecturer, Mongol biker - as well as pro wrestler and Gov of Minnesota.
I'm surprised it took you so long to get into Jesse Ventura. He was impressive in the late 90's, tho' he did go badly off post-9/11 when he got into conspiracy theories and grew his hair. But in his day he was larger-than-life
Here's a prescient Trump/Ventura speech. From seventeen years ago!
Interesting post but don't you think the pressure of having a microphone pushed under his nose asking him when he's going to resign evrty time he moves might tell in the end?
No. Corbyn is impervious to media pressure, which may have its downsides but is in itself an admirable quality.
Significant boundary changes in 2010 which added Keswick and three rural wards to the constituency. The present seat would have been Tory in both 1983 and 1987 - and too close to call in 1992.
Ah - we were waiting to be told how insignificant the Copeland result was in the greater scheme of things. No doubt all 26 Labour MPs with majorities under 2500 will be much re-assured.
You appear to have missed my comment from yesterday when I described both by election results as excellent for the Tories.That is no reason ,however, for wishing to share the psephological and historical ignorance of much of the commentariat.
When the Guardian asked to participate, pointing to its possession of a “hard pass” that grants daily entry to the White House, an official declined.
“No, unfortunately a hard pass does not necessarily guarantee entry into the gaggle,” Catherine Hicks, a junior White House press aide, emailed in response.
I think it is incredibly short-sighted to believe that a 52-48 vote has settled this for eternity.
It's not settled for eternity, but Rejoin will be a much harder sell to the British public than Remain was, considering the implications regarding the euro and Schengen.
But rejoining the single market via EEA/EFTA won't be.
For those who still fancy the idea of an election to be held on May 4th ,the clock is now ticking. For that to happen Parliament would have to be dissolved on March 27th – and any vote to authorise that would have to have taken place in the previous week. To block such a process under the 2/3 rule all Labour would need to do is abstain. I really cannot see Corbyn co-operating under present circumstances with such a plan by May should she have any such intention.Yesterday he refused 14 times to answer Michael Crick’s question as to whether he still favoured a general election.
Why would it have done? There was no disruption, nothing was changed, just another currency that was introduced over a number of years with some stocks being traded in it as a virtual currency replacing the ECU for three years before the physical coins and notes.
I don't know, ask these guys, they all thought it would be a disaster
Comments
Having said that, doing a hitch as in UDT in the 'nam was no picnic.
Stoke's best days were clearly behind it even then, but it still has significant challenges. The move from manufacturing to wharehousing and service industries is stressful everywhere.
The main employer is Bet365. Leaving the Single market closes off leverage to get the EU to open up to our numerous online bookies (a problem for holidaying PBers at times!). That is not going to happen now, unless our bookies get an EU location and EU government to push on their behalf. If such liberalisation occurs it will no longer benefit Stokes biggest employer.
So, yes in many ways things can get worse.
Not wishing to upstage Roger, but presumably other PBers are allowed to forecast their Oscar winners. Mine are as follows for the 25 awards on offer, showing the best decimal betting odds currently available:
Best Picture : La La Land 1.2
Best Director: Damian Chazelle (La La Land) 1.06
Best Writing: Moonlight 1.2
Best Actor: Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea) 1.8
Best Actress: Emma Stone (La La Land) 1.17
Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight) 1.2
Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis (Fences) 1.05
Best Adapted Screenplay: Moonlight 1.20
Best Animated Feature Film: Zootopia 1.25
Best Animated Short Film: Piper 1.29
Best Cinematography: La La Land 1.20
Best Costume Design: La La Land 1.73
Best Documentary Feature: Made in America 1.17
Best Short Documentary: Extremis 2.5 OR The White Helmets 2.6 (Joint Picks)
Best Film Editing: La La Land : 1.17
Best Foreign Language Film: The Salesman 1.91
Best Live Action Short Film: Ennemis Interieurs 2.0
Best Make-up: Star Trek Beyond 1.44
Best Original Score: La La Land 1.13
Best Original Screenplay: Manchester by the Sea 1.72
Best Original Song: City of Stars 1.2
Best Production Design: La La Land 1.08
Best Sound Editing: Hacksaw Ridge 1.57
Best Sound Mixing: La La Land 1.17
Best Visual Effects: 1.22
Although I am very confident of having identified over half the winners, this is not on account of my having any specialised knowledge, but rather because of the 25 categories 23 have short odds-on favourites making it virtually impossible to show a profit. In fact I calculate that I would need to be correct in at least 18 categories to at least break even. Accordingly I will NOT be placing any bets.
1) I am not and never have been a LibDem.
2) I do not hope that the UK will fail. I believe that it is doing itself irreparable harm - completely different
3) Because of (2) I am of the opinion that the UK will have no choice but to rejoin in 20 or 30 years time
Personally I hope that Brexit is not a disaster.
Lily Allen
.@johndubskierx can't even get an appt at the doctors because pensioners just skip the queue, and claim all benefits. It has to stop.
Though what it ascribes to North Korea, I always heard as Switzerland.
Danny Kennedy shortened to 1-5 from 3-10
Sandra Overend shorten to 4-6 from Evens
Jemma Dolan shortened to 4-9 from 15-8 !
McCandless shortened to 14-1 from 33-1
John Stewart shortened to 6-4 from 2-1
Alex Attwood shortened to 11-4 from 7-2
Nichola Mallon shortened to 8-11 from Evens
Let me guess, 95% of your 'faceless bureaucrats' got their jobs following a unanimous executive decision by the Council of Ministers, the other 5% by QMV. However, the UK would have voted to move to GMV
I will look forward to campaigning for us to rejoin once & when the question arises, but it is settled for now - certainly not eternity mind.
To be fair, non of us 'Know' what will happen, amongst other things, natural disasters, War, and so on could all intervene. But we do know that trade destroys poverty and creates wealth, and is the biggest overarching route to long term prosperity. Out side the EU and out side the Customs Union, we are likely to get more of it, as there will be less obstacles to us trading with the 93% of the would's population outside the EU who account for 84% of global GDP.
The idea of downsizing sounds good but we found unless we want to be really radical in our change of lifestyle (something that is actually quite scary for an older couple) or move a long way away (we considered Northumberland, Cumbria, the Netherlands and Portugal) the figures just don't stand up.
Here's a prescient Trump/Ventura speech. From seventeen years ago!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmuOnO680iw
new thread
When the Guardian asked to participate, pointing to its possession of a “hard pass” that grants daily entry to the White House, an official declined.
“No, unfortunately a hard pass does not necessarily guarantee entry into the gaggle,” Catherine Hicks, a junior White House press aide, emailed in response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv7UoK8oJY