The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
I have every sympathy with the 85% of the PLP who did not nominate that someone.
What would you like them to do now? Mount another premature challenge to Corbyn, and fail, further consolidating his position?
They're playing it right, by my book, giving him free rein to show what he's capable of such that if (and no doubt when) a year or more down the road he's failed there'll be a much better chance than now of removing him.
Mr. 124, PLP collectively is to blame. Idiots like Sadiq Khan and Margaret Beckett[sp] who supported someone they didn't actually want as leader utterly failed to understand their job was to act as gatekeepers.
I disagree. Putting Corbyn on the ballot paper did not make it inevitable that he would win the contest. That was entirely the consequence of the grassroots outrage which flowed from Harman's decision to ask the PLP to abstain on the Welfare proposals announced by Osborne in his July Budget. Had she not made that disastrous decision Corbyn would have been in a fairly distant third place.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.
F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.
Random F1 fact: An F1 car (2016 model) accelerates from 60-120mph faster than it gets from 0-60.
Presumably because when the car starts the engine revs are zero - and max power is not reached until the engine gets to fairly high revs.
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
More than one person to blame IMHO, all the MPs that lent a sympathy vote to Corbyn - and whoever made the final decision to extend the new membership sign up beyond those on the books at the GE2015. If HH as interim leader was responsible for the latter, then yes, she has a lot to answer for.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
Having lived in Gorton (Longsight) admittedly briefly, I can assure people it has very little in common with Cambridge, Brighton, etc. It is the home of students, recent immigrants and TV's Gallagher families. it is cheap to live there. It is definitely not the home of the latte sipping middle class. That is a different Manchester altogether. Although, as always there are some reasonably affluent bits. Students may live there, lecturers don't.
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
No, she quickly understood why Labour lost in 2015 and was doing what she could to keep the party electable. The fault is not just with moderate MPs who elected Corbyn, but also the moderate wing generally for not putting forward a decent candidate, and with Ed Miliband for not seeing the glaring issue with the £3 system.
Nonsense - she should have been able to anticipate the effect of such a decision on party members. It was a highly irresponsible move by an acting leader - particularly as she had declined to enter the main contest. With hindsight the other contenders ought to have stepped down from Shadow Cabinet for the duration of that election campaign and so been able to oppose the proposals themselves. That would have neutralised Corbyn's appeal.
Does not the number of cases where people, long resident in this country, have left UK temporarily to, for example, care for elderly parents, suggest that some reasonably minor amendment to the rules is required?
The caring for the elderly parents wasn't the issue, the staying the the country unlawfully for three years was. Making an application before returning to the UK for a new visa and then returning lawfully to the UK would have prevented the problem.
The delusion from Meeks and co about how our visa system has suddenly got tough because of BrExit is just that. Our visa system along with almost everyone else's in the world has been very tough for years.
To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.
F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.
It depends on the compound, the pressure and the rigidity so, all things being equal, yes but not necessarily. Also bigger (heavier) tyres have a larger rotational moment of inertia so they'll take more energy to accelerate...
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
[Snipped]
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
What we have at present is far from clear, effective and swift. It is dysfunctional, very arbitrary and to a large extent driven by unacknowledged quotas, which mean that a proportion of people can get away with playing the system while others who are less well connected will be excluded by default. So let's say we sort that out, would it deal with the principles you set out? In any case, does YOUR objection to sharing a country with someone you don't know trump MY right to sharing a life with the person I love? (I am personalising simply as an example)
I'm not sure I understand the last question.
Whatever rules (and I include the exercise of discretion in this) you have some people will fall outside them. What seems to happen in some cases is that those who fall outside the rules then try and use all sorts of other reasons to get round the fact that they fall on the wrong side of the line. And I object to that because one needs certainty and it is also unfair to others who are outside the line who don't manage (or don't try) to manipulate emotion to get what they want.
In general I think that people who marry (provided the marriage is not simply entered into for the purpose of circumventing immigration rules) should live in the same country but where they come from different countries which country that will be will depend on a whole range of factors, of which immigration rules are only one.
Whatever rights you have are as set out in the law. Everyone can fall in love and marry whom they choose. With very limited exceptions we don't place restrictions on the latter. But that is very different to saying that everyone thereby has an automatic and inalienable right to live in the country of their choice regardless of what the laws of that country provide.
Immigration/residency laws cannot solely be determined by the "wants" of those who want to live in a country which is not their country of birth.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
"Listening to the voices, he was also struck by how utterly convinced everyone was of the supreme correctness of their own position, and a reluctance to listen to one another. As well as exploring Brexit, the play will highlight this shrivelling of empathy. “With the death in belief of the great them – whether they are politicians, kings and queens or experts – what do we believe in? We believe in ourselves. Cameras now are only used to take photos of ourselves – not of anything around us. We know we are in an age of extreme selfishness,” he says."
The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.
How many British families do you figure are suffering because they are not able to bring their husbands/wives/children to the UK because of the minimum earnings threshold ? Still, out of sight, out of mind eh ?
Mr. F, thanks, I've read and replied. Always useful to learn what people like, and what they didn't (mildly surprised Stephen's gone down well with readers, as he's obviously the biggest milksop of the protagonists. Maybe it's my natural talent for writing socially awkward characters).
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
No - she may have been daft - but those MPs who nominated someone whom they thought useless should bear the responsibility. That was the PLP's job: to filter out those who were hopeless. They didn't discharge that responsibility and are now bearing the consequences.
Too many stupid decisions are made out of sentimentality, often in environments where you would have thought that ruthlessness would be more important. Such as politics.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
The Academy screw up saved us from 6 hours of thespian moaning and gave the Donald a clean break
He'd a black tie meeting with 46 Governors instead.
maybe, but today he's not the media villain, Meryl Streep didnt get an Oscar and the luvvies agenda is all about themselves while the shrieks of Adolf2 drift silently off over the Hollywood Hills
I suspect he;ll be chortling all the way to his next Executive Order
It was all about the epic navel gazing of Viola Someone for a bit, then a Black Muslim [who's that unfashionable Wrong Sort Of Muslim] - then that Iranian guy ... then BOOM!
To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.
This is denying those on low incomes and with little money who wish to marry foreigners from certain countries the right to a family life and cannot be justified.
Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
No, she quickly understood why Labour lost in 2015 and was doing what she could to keep the party electable. The fault is not just with moderate MPs who elected Corbyn, but also the moderate wing generally for not putting forward a decent candidate, and with Ed Miliband for not seeing the glaring issue with the £3 system.
Harman is one of many who should carry the blame. Out of vanity she wen't beyond the role of a caretaker leader and unnecessarily put Burnham in a difficult position where he would have to resign from the Shadow Cabinet if he were to oppose Osborne's plans for welfare cuts. Had she not done so, and had Burnham not made the wrong choice, we would probably now have a Labour leader who would be making the right call on EU immigration, leaving Labour open to regaining support from core supporters who voted Leave.
The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.
How many British families do you figure are suffering because they are not able to bring their husbands/wives/children to the UK because of the minimum earnings threshold ? Still, out of sight, out of mind eh ?
It's certainly not out of sight, out of mind for the families.
Until you've seen what I've written not sure how you can criticize it.
Of course betrayal is a universal theme. But in any case I didn't say that it is only the Left which indulges in betrayal themes. I was writing about the Left - or one particular bit of it - and was interested in what this particular issue might tell us.
And that McDonnell article which I didn't know about until about an hour ago is a very good example of what I had in mind.
Threads - and even posts - would be immensely tiresome if we had to append at the end the caveat that of course this particular example of human behavior occurs universally. Maybe we could take that as read. Whataboutery is rarely illuminating.
I hope I don't sound snippy: your posts and threads are some of the more interesting ones on here.
Don't worry about sounding "snippy" - I shouldn't have had a pop until, as you say, I'd seen the whole thing.
The truth is many, if not the majority of posters on this site are anti-Left. As someone who would be seen by most on here as of the Left, I'd like to challenge the constant anti-Left rhetoric occasionally.
I'm not blind to Labour's faults (as my piece yesterday will have shown) but nor am I prepared to give the Conservatives a free pass. Indeed, one might argue the Conservatives are a deal more ruthless with their leaders than Labour and therein may lie the problem.
The other aspect is the continual framing of negative political behaviour as being the sole preserve of "the Left" when "the Right" are as capable of virtue signalling, identity politics and all the other ludicrous euphemisms thrown out nowadays.
To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.
To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.
This is denying those on low incomes and with little money who wish to marry foreigners from certain countries the right to a family life and cannot be justified.
Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Mr. F, thanks, I've read and replied. Always useful to learn what people like, and what they didn't (mildly surprised Stephen's gone down well with readers, as he's obviously the biggest milksop of the protagonists. Maybe it's my natural talent for writing socially awkward characters).
You've written him well. A decent man in a nasty world. Rather like Sam Tarly. Not every character in a fantasy novel should be a badass.
To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.
This is denying those on low incomes and with little money who wish to marry foreigners from certain countries the right to a family life and cannot be justified.
Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?
Sort of. The trick is getting your spouse into Ireland in the first place on the one hand, and having to live there until your residency permit comes through which is typically 4-6 months. It isnt sufficient to just sit in a bedsit for the duration either, you will need to get a job there. So its possible, but expensive, difficult and time consuming, and not always available depending on the visa relationship between your spouses country and RoI or wherever.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
Trump's ICE men wouldn't mess around here.
The LEOs, Feds and other law enforcers have taken a very strong set of actions on paedos and sex traffickers - 474 arrested so far. He's not fannying about. Dozens of sex slaves rescued - but hardly a mention compared to hysteria about a tweet.
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
It is possible to have a family life outside Britain. If you are a Vietnamese citizen (say) then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Vietnam and to raise a family with them in Vietnam if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.
The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.
How many British families do you figure are suffering because they are not able to bring their husbands/wives/children to the UK because of the minimum earnings threshold ? Still, out of sight, out of mind eh ?
It's certainly not out of sight, out of mind for the families.
Tell me about it I am personally familiar with several such cases. I believe others on this forum from personal experience.
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
You could probably get a custom vinyl wrap for under 10 grand.
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
No - she may have been daft - but those MPs who nominated someone whom they thought useless should bear the responsibility. That was the PLP's job: to filter out those who were hopeless. They didn't discharge that responsibility and are now bearing the consequences.
Too many stupid decisions are made out of sentimentality, often in environments where you would have thought that ruthlessness would be more important. Such as politics.
I don't believe that it was wrong in principle to have Corbyn on the ballot paper - despite having no inclination to support him myself. He clearly did - and continues to - represent a strand of opinion within the party which should not have been frozen out. However, had Harman not been so stupid he would have been easily defeated.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.
To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.
Of course they can. Just commenting that they're not much fun
Yes she should have had the courage of her conviction. Seeing as it's now ok to be an unmarried mother, why not get divorced?!
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.
Of course they can. Just commenting that they're not much fun
Yes she should have had the courage of her conviction. Seeing as it's now ok to be an unmarried mother, why not get divorced?!
She was marrying Jack Dromey. Not a lot to celebrate there.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.
The pilots who told me this were incensed that Air France had not been prosecuted and/or had their arses sued off. They felt that the pilots were under pressure to fly straight through and preserve fuel. This was an accident which should not have happened and did so for cost-savings reasons.
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.
I'm glad that they have moved on. However, we shouldn't have to faff around with 24 hour removal notices and other legal niceties. Sling the feckers out, no mucking around.
F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.
Random F1 fact: An F1 car (2016 model) accelerates from 60-120mph faster than it gets from 0-60.
Presumably because when the car starts the engine revs are zero - and max power is not reached until the engine gets to fairly high revs.
Yes, it's to do with traction off the line, the engine can't put down all it's power without spinning the tyres, and the only traction control is the driver's right foot. Will be interesting to see if that stat holds for the new tyres, which have more rubber on the track, but are not quite as sticky and slightly heavier than last year's.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
It is possible to have a family life outside Britain. If you are a Vietnamese citizen (say) then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Vietnam and to raise a family with them in Vietnam if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.
From the limited amount I can see on the story the presentation is entirely dishonest in any case. She was in the country unlawfully for three years, this is the only fact that really matters. Just about every country in the world will summarily deport you, and refuse future visa applications on such basis. It is perfectly fine to go abroad and look after aged parents, accepting that it will cancel your indefinite leave to remain which was issued on the basis that you stay in the UK. The correct steps to take at this point is to apply for a new visa, the case would be clear and compelling and unlikely to be rejected.
What we have at present is far from clear, effective and swift. It is dysfunctional, very arbitrary and to a large extent driven by unacknowledged quotas, which mean that a proportion of people can get away with playing the system while others who are less well connected will be excluded by default. So let's say we sort that out, would it deal with the principles you set out? In any case, does YOUR objection to sharing a country with someone you don't know trump MY right to sharing a life with the person I love? (I am personalising simply as an example)
@Cyclefree I'm not sure I understand the last question.
...
Thanks for the reply. I meant that as a philosophical rather than a legal question, on the basis that the law is there to serve the public good. If we sort out the dysfunction of the immigration "service" we will end up with higher immigration because that dysfunction is deliberate. It excludes people from coming to the UK that are perfectly bonafide couples, as Mrs Clennell almost certainly is. So how do people feel about that higher immigration? Are they going to look for other more open and straightforward ways to stop people who love each other sharing their lives together in the UK, on the basis that immigration restrictions are more important than family life?
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
For betting purposes I would rather Harriet was the caretaker.
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Nothing being discussed here goes against that. It does not say the right to marry and found a family in a particular country. The society and state in (3) is the society and state in which you find yourself, not any particular one. This matter has already been before the ECJ several times and they have always ruled that the UK application of the law is proportionate.
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.
To be fair, it's their wedding, and they can do whatever they want. The startling thing is her feeling that she had to get married to further her career. Not what you expect from such a staunch feminist as Harman.
Of course they can. Just commenting that they're not much fun
Yes she should have had the courage of her conviction. Seeing as it's now ok to be an unmarried mother, why not get divorced?!
She was marrying Jack Dromey. Not a lot to celebrate there.
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
But, within human rights laws, it's not considered an absolute. A foreign spouse who has committed a crime might be deported, for example.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
It is possible to have a family life outside Britain. If you are a Vietnamese citizen (say) then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Vietnam and to raise a family with them in Vietnam if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.
I agree. The married couple should have the right to live and raise a family in either country.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
Well it's up to them what kind of wedding they have... But seriously who'd want to be a guest at a weeding where there's not even a cake?
Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...
A better question is who wants to eat wedding cake, when on the sauce at a wedding? Sweet things like cake go very badly with beer and wine. A better idea would be luxury salty snacks – perhaps Harman brought out the pistachios?
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
Trump's ICE men wouldn't mess around here.
The LEOs, Feds and other law enforcers have taken a very strong set of actions on paedos and sex traffickers - 474 arrested so far. He's not fannying about. Dozens of sex slaves rescued - but hardly a mention compared to hysteria about a tweet.
When you say "he's not fannying about," you presumably mean President Obama who set up January as national nick-a-nonce month each year?
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Consequences don't fall out of the air. If you are a British citizen then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Britain, and to raise a family with them in Britain if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
It is possible to have a family life outside Britain. If you are a Vietnamese citizen (say) then you ought to be able to marry someone from anywhere in the world and bring them to live with you in Vietnam and to raise a family with them in Vietnam if you so wish. That is fundamental to having the right to a family life.
The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.
I agree. The married couple should have the right to live and raise a family in either country.
Maybe it should. It doesn't in any country I can think of.
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
I'd imagine there's not that many places in the UK that have the facilities to paint a coach. It needs a bloody big clean room and probably takes a couple of weeks unless it's a simple design.
You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.
As an analogy. You have the right to Freedom of Speech, you don't have the right to be published in the Sunday Times.
Until you've seen what I've written not sure how you can criticize it.
Of course betrayal is a universal theme. But in any case I didn't say that it is only the Left which indulges in betrayal themes. I was writing about the Left - or one particular bit of it - and was interested in what this particular issue might tell us.
And that McDonnell article which I didn't know about until about an hour ago is a very good example of what I had in mind.
Threads - and even posts - would be immensely tiresome if we had to append at the end the caveat that of course this particular example of human behavior occurs universally. Maybe we could take that as read. Whataboutery is rarely illuminating.
I hope I don't sound snippy: your posts and threads are some of the more interesting ones on here.
Don't worry about sounding "snippy" - I shouldn't have had a pop until, as you say, I'd seen the whole thing.
The truth is many, if not the majority of posters on this site are anti-Left. As someone who would be seen by most on here as of the Left, I'd like to challenge the constant anti-Left rhetoric occasionally.
I'm not blind to Labour's faults (as my piece yesterday will have shown) but nor am I prepared to give the Conservatives a free pass. Indeed, one might argue the Conservatives are a deal more ruthless with their leaders than Labour and therein may lie the problem.
The other aspect is the continual framing of negative political behaviour as being the sole preserve of "the Left" when "the Right" are as capable of virtue signalling, identity politics and all the other ludicrous euphemisms thrown out nowadays.
I agree with this. I always had you down as a Lib Dem as - to the extent I have any affiliation at all (I tend to the Patrick Cockburn view of politicians) - am I.
Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Well it's up to them what kind of wedding they have... But seriously who'd want to be a guest at a weeding where there's not even a cake?
Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...
A better question is who wants to eat wedding cake, when on the sauce at a wedding? Sweet things like cake go very badly with beer and wine. A better idea would be luxury salty snacks – perhaps Harman brought out the pistachios?
Salty nibbles do go best with booze... But you can always take the wedding cake home with you....
Anyway, doubt Mr and Mrs Harman have ever had an alcoholic beverage in their lives....
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
I'd imagine there's not that many places in the UK that have the facilities to paint a coach. It needs a bloody big clean room and probably takes a couple of weeks unless it's a simple design.
There are lots of coaches in the UK. How do they all get sprayed up in the first place?
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed. We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.
I'm glad that they have moved on. However, we shouldn't have to faff around with 24 hour removal notices and other legal niceties. Sling the feckers out, no mucking around.
The law doesn't work that way and nor does it empower the authorities to seize and destroy people's possessions (yet). The whole Traveller issue arouses very strong passions on all sides.
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
I'd imagine there's not that many places in the UK that have the facilities to paint a coach. It needs a bloody big clean room and probably takes a couple of weeks unless it's a simple design.
As mentioned up thread, vinyl wrapping is a superior solution.
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
For betting purposes I would rather Harriet was the caretaker.
Request granted. Harriet can be caretaker. She would do an equally good job.
The right to a family life is not an absolute. A society also is entitled to stipulate who it does and does not wish to immigrate.
Your second sentence appears to contain an absolute. Rights are granted or recognised by the state. The right to a family life should be respected universally, and in fact it is recognised as universal in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 16:
***** (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. *****
Nothing being discussed here goes against that. It does not say the right to marry and found a family in a particular country. The society and state in (3) is the society and state in which you find yourself, not any particular one. This matter has already been before the ECJ several times and they have always ruled that the UK application of the law is proportionate.
I do not have to agree with the ECJ. "The state" in 3) means every state in the UN. A person has the right to live in their own country, and they should have the right to live there and raise a family with their spouse.
Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
LOL. I note @MorrisDancer above has put his name forward for this particular gig. I should imagine if CPFC advertised it on MyBuilder.com they'd get several skilled Polish blokes offering their services for much less. Maybe their fans insist on a born-in Larnderner to do the job at top whack prices?
I'd imagine there's not that many places in the UK that have the facilities to paint a coach. It needs a bloody big clean room and probably takes a couple of weeks unless it's a simple design.
As mentioned up thread, vinyl wrapping is a superior solution.
Oh sure, but if it has a nice paint job that got vandalised, they'll sure they claim the value of another nice paint job from whichever insurance company is paying the bill!
Well it's up to them what kind of wedding they have... But seriously who'd want to be a guest at a weeding where there's not even a cake?
Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...
A better question is who wants to eat wedding cake, when on the sauce at a wedding? Sweet things like cake go very badly with beer and wine. A better idea would be luxury salty snacks – perhaps Harman brought out the pistachios?
Salty nibbles do go best with booze... But you can always take the wedding cake home with you....
Anyway, doubt Mr and Mrs Harman have ever had an alcoholic beverage in their lives....
I have no idea about Dromey but Harriet is certainly a wine fan
You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.
As an analogy. You have the right to Freedom of Speech, you don't have the right to be published in the Sunday Times.
Well quite. Incidentally, that paper has become largely unreadable these days. Very little journalism and very few articles that are worth reading to the end.
You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.
As an analogy. You have the right to Freedom of Speech, you don't have the right to be published in the Sunday Times.
You are being silly now. No-one is advocating the abandonment of all immigration rules, and your Sunday Times analogy is inapposite, because people do have a right to live in the countries they are citizens of, and they also have the right to marry and raise a family. People can exercise their universal human rights in their own countries.
What is Britain? Some kind of right-wing special snowflake?
Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
Didn't Creasy run an anti loan sharks campaign? Not sure it's fair to imply she is just a pretty face...?
Edit: Maybe that's what you are saying, your post was ambiguous
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
For betting purposes I would rather Harriet was the caretaker.
Request granted. Harriet can be caretaker. She would do an equally good job.
Well it's up to them what kind of wedding they have... But seriously who'd want to be a guest at a weeding where there's not even a cake?
Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...
A better question is who wants to eat wedding cake, when on the sauce at a wedding? Sweet things like cake go very badly with beer and wine. A better idea would be luxury salty snacks – perhaps Harman brought out the pistachios?
Salty nibbles do go best with booze... But you can always take the wedding cake home with you....
Anyway, doubt Mr and Mrs Harman have ever had an alcoholic beverage in their lives....
I have no idea about Dromey but Harriet is certainly a wine fan
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
God the Tories must be quaking in their boots.
No, probably not. But baby steps. The enemy within is Labour's acute problem. The Conservatives are its opponents, not its enemy.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
I may have misremembered but I thought part of the problem was that the less experienced pilot did not realize he was putting the plane into a stall and by the team he - or the senior pilot did - they were already plunging into the sea and it was too late. Agonisingly, until quite late, they could have recovered the situation if the right action was taken but they were utterly confused about what was going on. The perils of flying without instruments when you have been used to relying on them, I guess.
Last autumn I had a few days holiday with a pilot friend of mine who has his own plane and we flew from Italy to Corsica and onto France and home. Watching what he did and how and everything that goes into a flight gave me a huge respect for pilots.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
I think the whole "push the controls forward to recover from a stall" principle is taught early in the first lesson of a PPL...
Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
Didn't Creasy run an anti loan sharks campaign? Not sure it's fair to imply she is just a pretty face...?
Edit: Maybe that's what you are saying, your post was ambiguous
That is what I'm saying: Creasy has used her time in Parliament to do something to help the more vulnerable. She's under huge pressure in her constituency, alas. But she seems to me to be a good example of a backbencher trying to do some good rather than just focusing on her own career. With the caveat, that I don't know much else about her, it seems to me we could do with more like her in public life.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
If you wanted someone with the experience of a Blair or a Wilson you'd have to go with Ed Balls or David Milliband but neither or them are runners at present.
After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.
I don't think it matters very much - what had John Major actually "done" from 1979 to 1990 - Chief Secretary to the Treasury isn't the highest-profile job and he wasn't Foreign Secretary or Chancellor for any length of time.
IF he puts his hat in the ring, Jarvis will have plenty of time to explain his policy views on a range of issues. The question is whether, as Kinnock did, he will have enough credentials within the party to win the leadership and then be able to move the Party to a more attractive centrist position - my guess is he will need a counterpoint as Deputy much as Kinnock had Hattersley and Blair had Prescott, Jarvis will need a Deputy who will unite the party so in a sense you are buying a ticket not an individual.
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
God the Tories must be quaking in their boots.
No, probably not. But baby steps. The enemy within is Labour's acute problem. The Conservatives are its opponents, not its enemy.
The Tory Right could reap what they've sown here - in heaping praise on Trump and all his works, they might have primed us to have our own star of a cheesy TV show as leader.
Hard to argue with that. The problem is how much and how badly he wants it and the price he is prepared to pay. He will be a much harder target for the Conservatives than Corbyn and will undoubtedly attract some who have fled Labour under Corbyn back to the Party.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
Didn't Creasy run an anti loan sharks campaign? Not sure it's fair to imply she is just a pretty face...?
Edit: Maybe that's what you are saying, your post was ambiguous
That is what I'm saying: Creasy has used her time in Parliament to do something to help the more vulnerable. She's under huge pressure in her constituency, alas. But she seems to me to be a good example of a backbencher trying to do some good rather than just focusing on her own career. With the caveat, that I don't know much else about her, it seems to me we could do with more like her in public life.
Debating Gay marriage on QT she smirked "if you don't like it, just don't marry a man!!"
After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.
People often say that, but it's one of the factoids which is both true and very misleading. Yes, Cameron hadn't been an MP for long, but he had plenty of experience of politics at the highest levels and of how the Commons works. He was hardly a complete newbie like Rebecca Long-Bailey is.
Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
God the Tories must be quaking in their boots.
No, probably not. But baby steps. The enemy within is Labour's acute problem. The Conservatives are its opponents, not its enemy.
The Tories Right could reap what they've sown here - in heaping praise on Trump and all his works, they might have primed us to have our own star of a cheesy TV show as leader.
There's always Liz Kendall. What gravitas she clearly has.
Has he ever said anything of note? Or done anything of interest or worth while in politics e.g. a la Stella Creasy?
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
If you wanted someone with the experience of a Blair or a Wilson you'd have to go with Ed Balls or David Milliband but neither or them are runners at present.
After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.
I don't think it matters very much - what had John Major actually "done" from 1979 to 1990 - Chief Secretary to the Treasury isn't the highest-profile job and he wasn't Foreign Secretary or Chancellor for any length of time.
IF he puts his hat in the ring, Jarvis will have plenty of time to explain his policy views on a range of issues. The question is whether, as Kinnock did, he will have enough credentials within the party to win the leadership and then be able to move the Party to a more attractive centrist position - my guess is he will need a counterpoint as Deputy much as Kinnock had Hattersley and Blair had Prescott, Jarvis will need a Deputy who will unite the party so in a sense you are buying a ticket not an individual.
What's scary for Labour is the quality of the talent coming into the PLP. Compare Jarvis elected in a by-election in 2011 with the Stoke and Copeland candidates, there's no comparison.
Yes, this is the same Guardian which runs zillions of indignant pieces about tax avoidance.
"is to be changed to require public sector employers to subtract tax and national insurance contributions from agency workers’ pay packets at source rather than allowing these workers to calculate their own tax contributions."
Surely those should be the same ? The affected workers can always write HMRC a letter or do self assesment to explain why they think their Tax/NI ought to be altered at any rate.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
I think the whole "push the controls forward to recover from a stall" principle is taught early in the first lesson of a PPL...
Yep, it sure is. Because it's counter-intuitive and will kill you if you don't understand it!
The issue on this flight is that they didn't really understand what the plane was doing, they were so far behind the curve that the plane was flying them. The 10,000' a minute (100 knots down) loss of altitude should have given them a bloody big clue though.
Scarily, a number of accidents in the last decade or so have had similar causes, whereby a pilot did something that wouldn't be expected of them. There's a well studied phenomenon - a lot of the studies started with AF447 - known as automation dependency, whereby today's pilots, especially on long haul flights, are spending all their time twiddling knobs rather than flying the plane, things go wrong so rarely that what should be basic stick and rudder skills aren't there when they're needed. This is exacerbated by airlines asking pilots to use the AP as often as possible as it's more efficient/saves money.
Interestingly the same thing is being observed with driverless cars, whereby a car that drives itself 99% of the time is much more likely to crash if it gets out of its comfort zone and says 'you have control' when it realises it's out of ideas. The driver is zoned out and can't react quickly enough. Car accidents also happen much faster than plane accidents, the AF447 crew had five minutes to avoid the ocean.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
I think the whole "push the controls forward to recover from a stall" principle is taught early in the first lesson of a PPL...
Not quite the first lesson, but very early. I'm a just few lessons into a PPL at the moment, and my last lesson involved practising deliberate stalls and recoveries at a safe altitude. This is done so that if you should inadvertently stall the plane close to the ground (typically while lining up to land), you immediately recognise the situation and are able to recover quickly and instinctively.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
I didn't know that about insufficient fuel to divert and very worrying, as you say. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Flying through storms is a normal thing. On the whole you assume mainstream European airlines are managed for safety, but in Air France case, that's doubtful.
Life would have been easier for the pilots if they'd had a serviceable weather radar too, if the pitot heat was switched on and if the captain didn't leave the two less experienced pilots at the controls as they went through the worst of the weather. Oh, and if one of the pilots had remembered that you recover from a stall by pushing forward, not pulling back. It was a complete clusterf... from start to finish.
I may have misremembered but I thought part of the problem was that the less experienced pilot did not realize he was putting the plane into a stall and by the team he - or the senior pilot did - they were already plunging into the sea and it was too late. Agonisingly, until quite late, they could have recovered the situation if the right action was taken but they were utterly confused about what was going on. The perils of flying without instruments when you have been used to relying on them, I guess.
Last autumn I had a few days holiday with a pilot friend of mine who has his own plane and we flew from Italy to Corsica and onto France and home. Watching what he did and how and everything that goes into a flight gave me a huge respect for pilots.
Correct. The plane was way ahead of the two first officers. By the time the captain got from his bed back to the cockpit and worked out what was going on, it was too late. 4'23" from 38,000' down to the sea. The instruments were pretty much all working, they just didn't understand what they were showing.
Yes, pilots are great people glad you had a great holiday!
What a totally futile exercise it has been this year attempting to turn a profit by betting on the Oscars. Despite my having correctly picked the winner in 17 of the 24 categories, I still succeeded in showing a loss of 1.75 units or 7% (25 units invested with 23.25 units returned) on account of the miniscule odds available on the favourites which were as short as 1/20, most of which were clearly therefore foregone conclusions. The only way to make any money is to find a gem of an outsider, as Roger succeeded in doing last year, or by identifying 3 or 4 winners at odds rather better than evens. An impossible task on this occasion.
Oh well, there's always next year!
FNT PfP.
OT Oscars. Every year I go to the bookmakers and put £10 on each of my tips. Usually somewhere between 16 and 20. This is the first year since I started doing them that I've made a loss albeit on a £180 stake just £12.
I was saved by Hacksaw Ridge for best editing at 5/1 which was nice as it was produced by my ex PA! A much more pleasing result than any winnings!
Comments
What would you like them to do now? Mount another premature challenge to Corbyn, and fail, further consolidating his position?
They're playing it right, by my book, giving him free rein to show what he's capable of such that if (and no doubt when) a year or more down the road he's failed there'll be a much better chance than now of removing him.
If the marriage is fake, and if only marriage would give the spouse the right to live here, then throw them out. I've got no problem with the authorities investigating to ensure that the marriage is real.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/836173819106705410
The delusion from Meeks and co about how our visa system has suddenly got tough because of BrExit is just that. Our visa system along with almost everyone else's in the world has been very tough for years.
To give an example, when you bring an non-EU spouse to the UK (ironically unless you are a non-UK citizen yourself) you need to demonstrate 18k earnings in the UK, or have 65k in savings also in the UK, this is non-negotiable. The bit less understood is that when after two and a half years you apply to for Indefinite Leave to Remain, the same test is made, and again when you apply for citizenship after five year, if you fail the earnings/saving check at either of those points, the spouse is deported. Introduced by cuddly Dave, the remainer.
Whatever rules (and I include the exercise of discretion in this) you have some people will fall outside them. What seems to happen in some cases is that those who fall outside the rules then try and use all sorts of other reasons to get round the fact that they fall on the wrong side of the line. And I object to that because one needs certainty and it is also unfair to others who are outside the line who don't manage (or don't try) to manipulate emotion to get what they want.
In general I think that people who marry (provided the marriage is not simply entered into for the purpose of circumventing immigration rules) should live in the same country but where they come from different countries which country that will be will depend on a whole range of factors, of which immigration rules are only one.
Whatever rights you have are as set out in the law. Everyone can fall in love and marry whom they choose. With very limited exceptions we don't place restrictions on the latter. But that is very different to saying that everyone thereby has an automatic and inalienable right to live in the country of their choice regardless of what the laws of that country provide.
Immigration/residency laws cannot solely be determined by the "wants" of those who want to live in a country which is not their country of birth.
The simple way to deal with this is you give them one hour to be gone or their caravans and other vehicles are seized and destroyed.
We really need to stop pissing around with people like this.
A lot of truth in this IMO:
"Listening to the voices, he was also struck by how utterly convinced everyone was of the supreme correctness of their own position, and a reluctance to listen to one another. As well as exploring Brexit, the play will highlight this shrivelling of empathy. “With the death in belief of the great them – whether they are politicians, kings and queens or experts – what do we believe in? We believe in ourselves. Cameras now are only used to take photos of ourselves – not of anything around us. We know we are in an age of extreme selfishness,” he says."
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/feb/27/rufus-norris-we-are-living-in-an-age-of-extreme-selfishness
Too many stupid decisions are made out of sentimentality, often in environments where you would have thought that ruthlessness would be more important. Such as politics.
Isn't the "Surinder Singh" loophole - settling first elsewhere in the EU, such as in the Republic of Ireland, and then coming to Britain, circumventing the 18k rule - still available?
The truth is many, if not the majority of posters on this site are anti-Left. As someone who would be seen by most on here as of the Left, I'd like to challenge the constant anti-Left rhetoric occasionally.
I'm not blind to Labour's faults (as my piece yesterday will have shown) but nor am I prepared to give the Conservatives a free pass. Indeed, one might argue the Conservatives are a deal more ruthless with their leaders than Labour and therein may lie the problem.
The other aspect is the continual framing of negative political behaviour as being the sole preserve of "the Left" when "the Right" are as capable of virtue signalling, identity politics and all the other ludicrous euphemisms thrown out nowadays.
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/836185723044790273
Sturgeon just doing her bit for Britain's exporters.
The right to have a family life is not dependant on living in one particular country only.
Mrs JackW is back within the hour ....
http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-02-27/travellers-removed-from-school-car-park/
It seems the travellers were moved on having failed to comply with a 24-hour removal notice issued on Saturday. I imagine they thought the Police wouldn't do anything on a Sunday so they had a few extra hours. This happens with travellers - the legislation has made them much easier to remove and normally such trespass only lasts a few hours.
Yes she should have had the courage of her conviction. Seeing as it's now ok to be an unmarried mother, why not get divorced?!
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
*This is the problem. Needs a serious figure in Commons (Harman? Benn?) to herd the cats.
https://twitter.com/RogerQuimbly/status/835926666048339968
Just as well they "banned" guests. Nobody would've gone anyway...
However, we shouldn't have to faff around with 24 hour removal notices and other legal niceties.
Sling the feckers out, no mucking around.
...
Thanks for the reply. I meant that as a philosophical rather than a legal question, on the basis that the law is there to serve the public good. If we sort out the dysfunction of the immigration "service" we will end up with higher immigration because that dysfunction is deliberate. It excludes people from coming to the UK that are perfectly bonafide couples, as Mrs Clennell almost certainly is. So how do people feel about that higher immigration? Are they going to look for other more open and straightforward ways to stop people who love each other sharing their lives together in the UK, on the basis that immigration restrictions are more important than family life?
You can have a family life in lots of countries in the world. That right does not imply the abandonment of all immigration rules or require states not to have any requirements for whom they will let into the country.
But, within human rights laws, it's not considered an absolute. A foreign spouse who has committed a crime might be deported, for example.
He's no Blair yet but he might be as electorally successful and certainly I could envisage him looking a real contender running against May in 2025.
Anyway, doubt Mr and Mrs Harman have ever had an alcoholic beverage in their lives....
Surely the bar should be something a little higher than being an ex-soldier and therefore presumably not keen on terrorists?
Choosing people on the basis of what they look like, whether they fit some category or other is part of the problem rather than the solution. While I dislike everything Corbyn stands for I can understand why he got votes from Labour members: at least - by comparison with his rivals - he had some ideas, the wrong ones mind but still. The rest were just full of clichés and wind.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/26/article-0-055816BA00000514-560_306x472.jpg
What is Britain? Some kind of right-wing special snowflake?
Edit: Maybe that's what you are saying, your post was ambiguous
Last autumn I had a few days holiday with a pilot friend of mine who has his own plane and we flew from Italy to Corsica and onto France and home. Watching what he did and how and everything that goes into a flight gave me a huge respect for pilots.
After all, Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became Conservative leader so in that respect Jarvis is a veteran.
I don't think it matters very much - what had John Major actually "done" from 1979 to 1990 - Chief Secretary to the Treasury isn't the highest-profile job and he wasn't Foreign Secretary or Chancellor for any length of time.
IF he puts his hat in the ring, Jarvis will have plenty of time to explain his policy views on a range of issues. The question is whether, as Kinnock did, he will have enough credentials within the party to win the leadership and then be able to move the Party to a more attractive centrist position - my guess is he will need a counterpoint as Deputy much as Kinnock had Hattersley and Blair had Prescott, Jarvis will need a Deputy who will unite the party so in a sense you are buying a ticket not an individual.
Then called for page 3 to be banned
If you don't like it...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/tax-changes-uk-public-sector-workers-salary-exodus-nhs
Yes, this is the same Guardian which runs zillions of indignant pieces about tax avoidance.
Surely those should be the same ?
The affected workers can always write HMRC a letter or do self assesment to explain why they think their Tax/NI ought to be altered at any rate.
The issue on this flight is that they didn't really understand what the plane was doing, they were so far behind the curve that the plane was flying them. The 10,000' a minute (100 knots down) loss of altitude should have given them a bloody big clue though.
Scarily, a number of accidents in the last decade or so have had similar causes, whereby a pilot did something that wouldn't be expected of them. There's a well studied phenomenon - a lot of the studies started with AF447 - known as automation dependency, whereby today's pilots, especially on long haul flights, are spending all their time twiddling knobs rather than flying the plane, things go wrong so rarely that what should be basic stick and rudder skills aren't there when they're needed. This is exacerbated by airlines asking pilots to use the AP as often as possible as it's more efficient/saves money.
Interestingly the same thing is being observed with driverless cars, whereby a car that drives itself 99% of the time is much more likely to crash if it gets out of its comfort zone and says 'you have control' when it realises it's out of ideas. The driver is zoned out and can't react quickly enough. Car accidents also happen much faster than plane accidents, the AF447 crew had five minutes to avoid the ocean.
Yes, pilots are great people
NEW THREAD
OT Oscars. Every year I go to the bookmakers and put £10 on each of my tips. Usually somewhere between 16 and 20. This is the first year since I started doing them that I've made a loss albeit on a £180 stake just £12.
I was saved by Hacksaw Ridge for best editing at 5/1 which was nice as it was produced by my ex PA! A much more pleasing result than any winnings!