It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
So they declare their destination as Bordeaux and their alternate as Paris, while intending all along to fly to Paris. That seems scarcely credible, though after Avianca Flight 52 who knows? Surely they'd have to give some reason for "diverting" from Bordeaux to Paris though?
Yes, they declare Bordeaux as the destination in the flight plan and Paris as the alternate, then when close to Bordeaux they have to decide whether to continue to Paris or land in Bordeaux. It saves several tons of fuel on a long flight, as the heavier aircraft burns more fuel. Occasionally they do end up in Bordeaux for a splash of fuel, but overall it saves airlines a fortune. All airlines do this, not just AF.
FPT I see you're studying for a PPL, good luck and Godspeed, as they say!
Very interesting. And thanks, got a way to go yet though!
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
Yes, sorry, me neither. I mean 'met' in the internet forum sense, meaning exchanged views with an anonymous poster who may exist or who may not!
It might be for the best. A vigorous "handbagging" might occur
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
Yes, sorry, me neither. I mean 'met' in the internet forum sense, meaning exchanged views with an anonymous poster who may exist or who may not!
We are Schrödinger's posters. You only find out if we exist when we actually meet.
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
Yes, sorry, me neither. I mean 'met' in the internet forum sense, meaning exchanged views with an anonymous poster who may exist or who may not!
It might be for the best. A vigorous "handbagging" might occur
I've just backed Amir Khan at 2/1 to beat the Pacman in April. A good shot (no pun intended) IMO, Manny is less likely to spark him out and Khan will be worked on to maintain discipline.
We actually had a cat called Astrophe. What was weird was that whenever we had to take him to the vet we were always asked where we'd got the name from!
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
That confuses the qualities needed in an individual with those needed in a parliament.
An effective parliament needs a wide range of life skills and experiences, otherwise important voices do not get heard. An assembly of 650 clever lawyers and political wonks might make for better debate but will they think to ask the right questions if those questions are completely outside their frame of reference? We have civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to be able to handle detail.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
So they declare their destination as Bordeaux and their alternate as Paris, while intending all along to fly to Paris. That seems scarcely credible, though after Avianca Flight 52 who knows? Surely they'd have to give some reason for "diverting" from Bordeaux to Paris though?
Yes, they declare Bordeaux as the destination in the flight plan and Paris as the alternate, then when close to Bordeaux they have to decide whether to continue to Paris or land in Bordeaux. It saves several tons of fuel on a long flight, as the heavier aircraft burns more fuel. Occasionally they do end up in Bordeaux for a splash of fuel, but overall it saves airlines a fortune. All airlines do this, not just AF.
FPT I see you're studying for a PPL, good luck and Godspeed, as they say!
Very interesting. And thanks, got a way to go yet though!
It's perfectly fine under the right circumstances, but if they continue when they should have landed the pilots will get tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits!
Enjoy the PPL, and when something gets you down remember how much fun it will be when you can go flying on your own or with friends for the weekend! There's a few of us on here with PPLs I think, although living abroad has lapsed mine now unfortunately.
There are two sets of data out today that show all that is wrong with both the Eurozone and UK economies.
In the Eurozone, everyone is celebrating that household loan growth has edged up to 2.2% year-over-year. Which is a decline in real terms, as GDP growth is 1.5% and inflation 2% (or so). In other words, Eurozone domestic demand remains too low.
In the UK, we're seeing personal credit expand at around 10% per year, against nominal income growth of just under 4%.
They need to spend more, and we need to take our foot off the gas.
On the UK personal credit figures, do they include credit-card expenditure which is going to be paid in full when the credit-card bill arrives? If so, and if that is a significant part of the total figure, it's very misleading.
I pay off every month and with the amount my wife spends...
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Even his supporters, surely, realise the additional need to be an effective politician, to say nothing of LotO.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
I've just backed Amir Khan at 2/1 to beat the Pacman in April. A good shot (no pun intended) IMO, Manny is less likely to spark him out and Khan will be worked on to maintain discipline.
If, as rumoured, that fight is in my part of the world, I'm definitely getting tickets. Biggest middleweight fight in a decade, hope they get a big enough venue!
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
Yes, sorry, me neither. I mean 'met' in the internet forum sense, meaning exchanged views with an anonymous poster who may exist or who may not!
We are Schrödinger's posters. You only find out if we exist when we actually meet.
I suspect most posters are nothing like their online persona in real life.
The real MorrisDancer lives in Battersea and goes to busy bars dressed in designer threads every Friday night.
The real SeanT is a 21-year-old teetotal virgin.
The real PlatoSaid is a mental health nurse for the Democratic Party of America.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
You're fearless and brave - you can't be stopped when you're young You swear you're never ever gonna work for someone No corporations for the new age sons Tears of rage roll down your face, but still you say "it's fun"
And you find out life isn't like that It's so hard to understand Why the world is your oyster but your future's a clam
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
...and the little people can all be governed by their well meaning and better educated masters who know better... What you say might have a tiny smidgin of sense if there was a way for the citizens of the EU to influence its policy direction with their votes. And again I am right - you don't talk at all about democracy. You talk about unity and pooled sovereignty. You seem happy to sell your freedom for stability. You'd have been a very useful idiot in the great dictatorships of the 20th century.
I've just backed Amir Khan at 2/1 to beat the Pacman in April. A good shot (no pun intended) IMO, Manny is less likely to spark him out and Khan will be worked on to maintain discipline.
If, as rumoured, that fight is in my part of the world, I'm definitely getting tickets. Biggest middleweight fight in a decade, hope they get a big enough venue!
Yes supposed to be bankrolled for $25m there. It's either there, or the US....or Bolton...
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
Nah, "Competence" is subjective. We benefit from having a variety of experience and skills in Parliament. If some MPs can remember (rather than imagine) what it is like to be poor, I can't see how that is a bad thing.
Competence is only subjective to those people who don't recognise it.
'If some MPs can remember (rather than imagine) what it is like to be poor, I can't see how that is a bad thing.'
That's what I mean about identity politics. It's like saying only a black person can relate to black people, or only a Muslim can relate to Muslim people, or only a gay person can relate to gay people, or, heaven forbid, only a white person can relate to white people. It's utter nonsense, but it's the poisoned well which Labour and the Left in general drink from.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
Mr. Patrick, there's a problem beyond that, which is that the British and French, Slovenians etc are not one people. Leaving aside our often divergent (from continental Europe) historical/political perspective, we could continually be outvoted, and would be unable to do anything about it.
Now, that can be tolerated within a cohesive nation-state (especially if the constitutional arrangement hasn't been buggered up by a smirking skeleton of greed). It cannot otherwise.
Mr. Bojabob, what is this 'Battersea' to which you refer? Is it near Brundisium?
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
You obviously weren't here for the outrage that Ms. Long-Bailey's accent provoked.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
It is delusion on a grand scale. I think he'd cling on and they'd still back him if Labour lost Gorton. Hence my radical plan of action as outlined on the previous thread...
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Mr. Patrick, there's a problem beyond that, which is that the British and French, Slovenians etc are not one people. Leaving aside our often divergent (from continental Europe) historical/political perspective, we could continually be outvoted, and would be unable to do anything about it.
Now, that can be tolerated within a cohesive nation-state (especially if the constitutional arrangement hasn't been buggered up by a smirking skeleton of greed). It cannot otherwise.
Mr. Bojabob, what is this 'Battersea' to which you refer? Is it near Brundisium?
Yup - the EU can never be a democracy because it hads no demos. This is not some intellectual, theoretical issue but a fundamental real problem. When the greek debt issue re-explodes or Italy folds will the Germans step up to pay for it? If No then the EU is dead. Sooner rather than later.
After several sensible missives which even many on the right agree with, Mr Pie appears to have gone off the deep end in his latest effort, apparently Labour being in free fall has nothing to do with Corbyn, its all the fault of Blair and Mandelson, who knew ?
...and the little people can all be governed by their well meaning and better educated masters who know better... What you say might have a tiny smidgin of sense if there was a way for the citizens of the EU to influence its policy direction with their votes.
That was equally true of the UK for many years and we widened the franchise. It could have been done for the EU as well. The EU was not perfect - far from it - but it is the right direction of travel and it needs to be a LOT more accountable to the ordinary man and woman. It is a problem that has been solved before in other countries and the EU could do it too.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
It is delusion on a grand scale. I think he'd cling on and they'd still back him if Labour lost Gorton. Hence my radical plan of action as outlined on the previous thread...
I know nothing about films - the last time I went to the pictures it was too see a new release called 'Boogie Nights' - but you've an enviable reputation for getting it right. In my total ignorance, I did toy with the idea of betting on the PC films this year after the furore last year.
Would that have worked out?
To an extent. I backed Midnight for best film, and The White Helmets for best short Doc, so came out at a modest profit. Tiddly stakes though, as always for Specials.
Saw Arrival last night. Can see why it was not a strong Oscar contender. Two mildly interesting ideas about language and time wrapped in endless maudlin tedium.
What? That has to be the most idiotic comment in the history of PB, and we've had people saying they like pineapple on pizzas.
J'adore Arrival.
I know a film is trite when I speak all the key dialogue before the characters do. My wife hates me for this.
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
I visited Altrincham in November
Altrincham is not Manchester, except for ice hockey purposes.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Eliminating grammar schools has eliminated a working class leadership echelon for Labour. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not grammar schools again. I'm 50 and there were no grammar schools for me. The PM is 60, and her grammar was made into a comprehensive. So how old does this leadership echelon have to be? There are plenty of people like Burnham who went to state schools. Most people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school is or was!
Clearly you don't. A grammar school is a state school. (There are quite a few local authorities which still have grammars, as an aside, including some which are frequently Labour-run such as Calderdale).
Vanishingly few. I repeat the vast majority of people under 55 have no idea what a grammar school was. And yes I know they were state schools.
If you know they were state schools, why did you introduce 'state schools' into it?
There look to be about 168 grammar schools in England, which is about 5.4% of the total. As grammars will be a minority even in areas where they operate, that probably equates to around a fifth of kids being educated in selective educational environments. A minority, to be sure, but hardly 'vanishingly few'.
As I said, most people under 55 (ie parents) have no idea what a grammar school was. To re-introduce them would be bold and courageous. ps, ALL Secondary kids, except Private and schools which only have one class per year are "educated in selective educational environments." It is called setting. I have yet to hear an argument for what the difference is between top set at a comp and a grammar school.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
Maybe they are just terrified to acknowledge that if Corbyn isn't the answer, then....dear God....*gulp*.....maybe Tony Blair was the only way Labour ever wins power?
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
I visited Altrincham in November
Altrincham is not Manchester, except for ice hockey purposes.
It is in Greater Manchester. As much a part of Manchester as Wimbledon is to London, expect for parochial purposes.
Indeed. It's because the EU puts Brits last. It's made WWC more nationalist. Labour have gone madly the other way.
Really? I thought the surveys showed Labour voters where dispropotionately more for "Remain" and that Labour/Corbyn's pro-Brexit status was alienating the Labour vote.
You are letting the facts get in the way of a good story there Beverley. Have you never met the PB Leavers??
I have never met ANYONE from PB. I nearly made it to one of the PB Manchester do's but real life intervened....
I visited Altrincham in November
Altrincham is not Manchester, except for ice hockey purposes.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
It is delusion on a grand scale. I think he'd cling on and they'd still back him if Labour lost Gorton. Hence my radical plan of action as outlined on the previous thread...
Just read it - sounds good to me.
Thanks. The weak point in the plan is getting someone with the necessary acumen to do the organising. Harman or Benn are possible candidates for the job, but is hard to identify a natural choice.
Political parties do not need working class MPs. That sounds like identity politics. What they need is COMPETENCE. Whether an MP is university educated or not, or from a council estate or a gated community in Surrey, it is surely more important to have the requisite communication skills, and the ability to articulate enormously complicated issues into common language. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher did that better than anyone else, and nobody would accuse those two of being 'working class', whatever that means. It just so happens that they are Oxbridge educated - an elite, if you will - but that is the purpose of elite education, like Eton. David Cameron didn't become party leader then PM because he had a chip on his shoulder due to his upbringing. We are so anti-intellectual in this country that a first class education is sneered at instead of being embraced, and someone's accent becomes a primary driver of their chances.
If you believe a party needs to have more representatives because of how they look, or their gender, or sexuality, or a certain religion, or even where they were born, then what really matters - their ability - becomes redundant. I think that just about sums up the modern Left.
You obviously weren't here for the outrage that Ms. Long-Bailey's accent provoked.
And her choice of high-street fashions. I think she is a crap choice for leader but that was a real low point in PB's recent history.
I know nothing about films - the last time I went to the pictures it was too see a new release called 'Boogie Nights' - but you've an enviable reputation for getting it right. In my total ignorance, I did toy with the idea of betting on the PC films this year after the furore last year.
Would that have worked out?
To an extent. I backed Midnight for best film, and The White Helmets for best short Doc, so came out at a modest profit. Tiddly stakes though, as always for Specials.
Saw Arrival last night. Can see why it was not a strong Oscar contender. Two mildly interesting ideas about language and time wrapped in endless maudlin tedium.
What? That has to be the most idiotic comment in the history of PB, and we've had people saying they like pineapple on pizzas.
J'adore Arrival.
Yep. Best film of 2016. Of course it takes intelligence to appreciate it which might be why some people found it difficult.
LOL. What intelligence does it take? It left the most interesting question unanswered - why Portuguese sounds so different from the other Romance languages.
As I said, two mildly interesting ideas on time and language. OK, I'll give you a third - that if the arriving aliens are significantly rather than slightly more technically and scientifically advanced than we are, they will also be more socially advanced, meaning their intent is less likely to be to kill us. In this case, that they might out of mutual self-interest want to help us.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
His supporters cite many reasons, including...
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor. A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war). The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care) A refreshing change from the machine politicians. Not being in it for the money,power. His beard.
Some of them even (claim to) believe that we can win the GE under Jezza's leadership.
I was willing to accept some of them, but now you are just being silly.
Even after several pints, they still won't admit that they really know that he is crap. It seems to be a firm belief!
Maybe they are just terrified to acknowledge that if Corbyn isn't the answer, then....dear God....*gulp*.....maybe Tony Blair was the only way Labour ever wins power?
*start sobbing uncontrollably....*
For those of us in Leeds Central, the potential answer is literally staring us in the face...
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Not throwing good money after bad, however, is sound sense.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Unification into bigger political entities sometimes means that war and conflict take place on a bigger scale.
Smaller political entities may be more homogeneous, and thus, more peaceful than bigger ones. And, the existence of lots of different countries makes it harder to prevent the flow of ideas from one country to another.
That said, even war and conflict can generate scientific, technological, and medical progress.
I know nothing about films - the last time I went to the pictures it was too see a new release called 'Boogie Nights' - but you've an enviable reputation for getting it right. In my total ignorance, I did toy with the idea of betting on the PC films this year after the furore last year.
Would that have worked out?
To an extent. I backed Midnight for best film, and The White Helmets for best short Doc, so came out at a modest profit. Tiddly stakes though, as always for Specials.
Saw Arrival last night. Can see why it was not a strong Oscar contender. Two mildly interesting ideas about language and time wrapped in endless maudlin tedium.
What? That has to be the most idiotic comment in the history of PB, and we've had people saying they like pineapple on pizzas.
J'adore Arrival.
Yep. Best film of 2016. Of course it takes intelligence to appreciate it which might be why some people found it difficult.
LOL. What intelligence does it take? It left the most interesting question unanswered - why Portuguese sounds so different from the other Romance languages.
As I said, two mildly interesting ideas on time and language. OK, I'll give you a third - that if the arriving aliens are significantly rather than slightly more technically and scientifically advanced than we are, they will also be more socially advanced, meaning their intent is less likely to be to kill us. In this case, that they might out of mutual self-interest want to help us.
What did you find so intelligent?
Doesnt the history of the various colonial adventures suggest that there is a tendency of the more technologically and socially advanced to try and control the less advanced for their own good, and quite likely for commercial exploitations... and that's before we consider the conquistadors and the various missionary adventures in South America.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Not throwing good money after bad, however, is sound sense.
True enough, but you can solve a problem as well as run away from it.
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
No - I am all for democracy. The UK does not have a monopoly on it and the last time I checked there were no dictatorships in the EU. In a democracy you can: 1. Choose different people / parties to form the government; and 2. Thereby change policy direction This is simply not true of the EU. The EU and its Commission is not a dictatorship in the classical sense. But it's not elected and it is simply unreformable. As the supersate emerges ever more fully formed EU citizens will have finally lost all ability to choose their masters or their policies. See my comments to Morris Dancer re the lack of demos. If you can't see that the democratic gap in an EU superstate is a chasm then you're a dumb heifer.
I see no point to instability, if I favoured that I may as well move to the Middle East or parts of Africa. A state with no political accountability is inherently unstable. Especially so where its constituent parts used to be democracies. Genuinely - what is going to happen when Greece can't roll over its debt or Italy? What if the EU overrules Poland and Hungary on their ability to direct appointing judges? How is the Euro going to overcome its inherent flaws? The EU is deeply unstable.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
Mrs C, better to kill a baby dragon than let it grow.
I don't doubt the perspective you have and which is shared by many others is motivated by entirely benevolent desires. But I think you're wrong. The longer the EU lasts, the harder the hammer blow when it crumbles.
Doesnt the history of the various colonial adventures suggest that there is a tendency of the more technologically and socially advanced to try and control the less advanced for their own good, and quite likely for commercial exploitations... and that's before we consider the conquistadors and the various missionary adventures in South America.
The logic would be that the social organization required to get across the Atlantic is nothing compared to that required to build spacecraft capable of traveling thousands of lightyears or more. Thus the degree of social advancement in the latter case of the 'Arrivees' far outstrips the European's social advancement over the Amerindians.
At the root of this line of reasoning is that the social effort to launch true interstellar travel necessitates one world governance. The fact that the nation state exists implies that there may still be a desire of one nation to hold sway over another. If that concept is dead, if the entire planet has only one government, then maybe (yes, just maybe) the desire to control others might be dead too.
That's the theory, anyway. As I said, a mildly interesting idea. But far from original. I think Asimov wrote about it a fair bit.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Not throwing good money after bad, however, is sound sense.
True enough, but you can solve a problem as well as run away from it.
But the EU is a problem that doesn't want to be solved. It needs a serious dose of reality to impose it. Such as its second largest economy choosing to walk away. And yet, have we heard much soul-searching about what needs to change to prevent others doing to same? No - just how painful the shackles need to be to keep people inside.
Mrs C, even if that 'pooled sovereignty' (moving it from nation-states to a supra-national body) isn't with the express consent and desire of the people?
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
It certainly is not an organisation without problems and you could well be right about its collapse. It certainly needs a better solution that its current one, but throwing the baby out with the bath-water is rarely a good answer...
Not throwing good money after bad, however, is sound sense.
True enough, but you can solve a problem as well as run away from it.
Remind us how Mr Cameron's attempts to solve some of our problems went.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
I've never tyndalled how dare you.
Edit: ooh you corrected it. But honest, I've never tyndalled.
F1: from the BBC livefeed: Sebastian Vettel moves to just over a tenth behind Lewis Hamilton with a time of 1:21.878 on, you've guessed it, the medium tyre.
Ferrari continue to impress.
----
Ok, good reliability. But in testing times last year, according to the same feed, the Mercedes wasn't even in the top six. You'd have to be a drunken lunatic to take the headline times seriously.
Mr. Mark, point of order: it's not the pain of the shackles, but the severity of the punishment beating which is being debated.
The EU project is a religion. The punishment for apostasy is death in the most medieval religions. It is the nature of religions - they can brook no alternative truth.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
The quality of Cameron deal is actually beside the point. The key issue is that his deal was unacceptable to the voters, which in a democracy is all that matters. It may have been all that he claimed. The voters didn't want it
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
OK to the substance - why? What would or would not have happened if an historic vote had gone a different way is worth talking about precisely why?
I see no point to instability, if I favoured that I may as well move to the Middle East or parts of Africa. A state with no political accountability is inherently unstable. Especially so where its constituent parts used to be democracies. Genuinely - what is going to happen when Greece can't roll over its debt or Italy? What if the EU overrules Poland and Hungary on their ability to direct appointing judges? How is the Euro going to overcome its inherent flaws? The EU is deeply unstable.
Some researchers argue that all complex systems, particularly complex adaptive systems working in the competitive environment, evolve towards a transition state (i.e. instability).
It is not instability that should be feared - all systems are unstable. It is the lack of ability to recognize and adapt quickly to critical changes in an unstable system that is dangerous. The hallmark of the EU.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
The quality of Cameron deal is actually beside the point. The key issue is that his deal was unacceptable to the voters, which in a democracy is all that matters. It may have been all that he claimed. The voters didn't want it
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
"The aim was to make sure that working class candidates who hadn’t been to university and didn’t have working for an MP or a front benchers on their CV had the skills to shine at selection conferences."
This is what grammar schools should be about and why the Labour Party should embrace them
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Just read it. It seems quite extraordinary that they appear to have simply ignored the stall warning and continued to pull back. If they'd just let go of the controls, the plane would probably have sorted itself out!
There is a well known effect inpilots and others where their balance organs in the ears are effected by acceleration and they believe that they are dropping when in fact they are accelerating upwards. I had a long discussion on this just a few days ago with a neighbour who trains pilots at Cranwell.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
It's only by means of a trick that the captain can even reach Paris without going under the legally required minimum reserves of kerosene that must still be in the plane's tanks upon arrival in the French capital. A loophole allows him to enter Bordeaux -- which lies several hundred kilometers closer than Paris -- as the fictitious destination for his fuel calculations.
Ah, the old "Aternate Destination" trick. It's not actually not too much of a problem in practice as somewhere like southern France has loads of runways, but it saves the airlines a fortune in fuel every year, albeit at the cost of an occasional diversion when the numbers don't work out.
Have you seen the last four minutes of voice recorder transcript for this flight?
Also the controls did not allow rapid visual verification of the pitch setting, so none of the other pilots noticed that the person at the controls was stalling the aircraft by pulling the nose up until seconds before the crash when the captain pegged it.
Yes. A friend of mine who flies Airbus planes says that they'll never change the way the sidesticks work despite all the problems they've had - as to do so could be seen as an admission that there was a problem. The sidesticks aren't connected except through software, if both move together then the inputs are summed and applied to the control surfaces. Each sidestick does have an over-ride button that disables the other, while it's pressed. There's a light to show if either both sticks are in use or if the over-ride is pressed, I think as a result of this accident it's now accompanied by a chime.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
One of the rare occasions when I am in favour of regulation. If the private sector on its own cannot bring itself to do something so evidently useful and contributory to safety, then it should be forced to. And shamed.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
I see no point to instability, if I favoured that I may as well move to the Middle East or parts of Africa. A state with no political accountability is inherently unstable. Especially so where its constituent parts used to be democracies. Genuinely - what is going to happen when Greece can't roll over its debt or Italy? What if the EU overrules Poland and Hungary on their ability to direct appointing judges? How is the Euro going to overcome its inherent flaws? The EU is deeply unstable.
Some researchers argue that all complex systems, particularly complex adaptive systems working in the competitive environment, evolve towards a transition state (i.e. instability).
It is not instability that should be feared - all systems are unstable. It is the lack of ability to recognize and adapt quickly to critical changes in an unstable system that is dangerous. The hallmark of the EU.
Some systems are very stable. Their inputs may vary wildly but they'll get processed and the outpus merely wobble a bit before settling down. But this dampening effect needs to be designed in. Car suspension shock absorbers. The earth's CO2 cycle. The balance of supply and demand. The tragedy of the EU is that they designed a complete lack of inherent stability in from the outset. 'Screw democracy. Screw optimal currency areas. We want a superstate!' It'll end in tears.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
...and as long as one group of Remainers extols the virtues of a federal EU, and another group of Remainers rubbish the idea that such a thing was ever on the cards!
Whether on the cards or not, we can't move beyond the current architecture without signing a new treaty so any fear-mongering about Dave's deal not being the final word is for the birds.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
I've never tyndalled how dare you.
Edit: ooh you corrected it. But honest, I've never tyndalled.
You should try it sometime. It is a little pervy but lots of fun. It comes in different flavours as well.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
That at least is an arguable point of view. Apart from the concerns around a European demos and democratic accountability within the EU though, those campaigning for Remain in the referendum said that a federal EU with Britain as a part wasn't going to happen - Clegg's description of the EU Army as a fantasy, Cameron's nonsense 'opt-out' from 'ever-closer union'.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
The EU is, was, and perhaps always will be on a federal ECU journey.
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
Cameron repeatedly told us his deal exempted us from any United States of Europe, even though the deal wasn't legally binding and 'ever-closer union' is just cosmetic wording.
= a pre-June 23rd discussion.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
It is still worth discussing as long as there are those who continue to try and prevent Brexit happening.
I've never tyndalled how dare you.
Edit: ooh you corrected it. But honest, I've never tyndalled.
You should try it sometime. It is a little pervy but lots of fun. It comes in different flavours as well.
Does it require a special kind of shrub to be planted in sight of the road?
Mr. Mark, point of order: it's not the pain of the shackles, but the severity of the punishment beating which is being debated.
The EU project is a religion. The punishment for apostasy is death in the most medieval religions. It is the nature of religions - they can brook no alternative truth.
I don't see any value in those odds - a bit longer and the LDs might have been worth a few quid. As it is I'm staying out of this one.
Yes, the LibDems are really the only contenders other than Labour, and they are a long-shot. Labour would have to screw up really impressively, which admittedly on recent form can't be entirely ruled out.
Remainers never, ever, ever talk about the catastrophe to our democracy a vote to remain would have entailed...funny that...
Well, for myself, I would be happy to see countries merging into Federations and pooling their sovereignty. Humanity has been divided for millennia and fighting disastrous wars. The concept of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - exists because of our history.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Comments
It might be for the best. A vigorous "handbagging" might occur
We are Schrödinger's posters. You only find out if we exist when we actually meet.
I've just backed Amir Khan at 2/1 to beat the Pacman in April. A good shot (no pun intended) IMO, Manny is less likely to spark him out and Khan will be worked on to maintain discipline.
An effective parliament needs a wide range of life skills and experiences, otherwise important voices do not get heard. An assembly of 650 clever lawyers and political wonks might make for better debate but will they think to ask the right questions if those questions are completely outside their frame of reference? We have civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to be able to handle detail.
Enjoy the PPL, and when something gets you down remember how much fun it will be when you can go flying on your own or with friends for the weekend! There's a few of us on here with PPLs I think, although living abroad has lapsed mine now unfortunately.
Baffled why anyone would want Corbyn to stay, but there we are.
A genuine sympathy for minorities and the poor.
A track record of political integrity and judgement (e.g. Being "right" on the Iraq war).
The best route to radical solutions to currently answered economic questions (mass automation, elderly care)
A refreshing change from the machine politicians.
Not being in it for the money,power.
His beard.
Unity brings peace and stability and offers many more opportunities and was the whole raison d'etre of the EEC / EU. I think it is the right way to go.
Manufacturing identity is extremely difficult and usually backfires. Some may like the idea or genuinely feel that a Greek is countryman to a Slovenian, and an Italian to an Estonian, but for most, that's not the case.
Nations and political accountability exist by a combination of historical accident and present day desire. The only lasting attempt to force a change in Europe was the Romans.
My fear, and belief, is that the EU is doomed to collapse. When it does, the more integrated the nations have become, the worse the fall-out.
The real MorrisDancer lives in Battersea and goes to busy bars dressed in designer threads every Friday night.
The real SeanT is a 21-year-old teetotal virgin.
The real PlatoSaid is a mental health nurse for the Democratic Party of America.
You swear you're never ever gonna work for someone
No corporations for the new age sons
Tears of rage roll down your face, but still you say "it's fun"
And you find out life isn't like that
It's so hard to understand
Why the world is your oyster but your future's a clam
What you say might have a tiny smidgin of sense if there was a way for the citizens of the EU to influence its policy direction with their votes.
And again I am right - you don't talk at all about democracy. You talk about unity and pooled sovereignty. You seem happy to sell your freedom for stability. You'd have been a very useful idiot in the great dictatorships of the 20th century.
'If some MPs can remember (rather than imagine) what it is like to be poor, I can't see how that is a bad thing.'
That's what I mean about identity politics. It's like saying only a black person can relate to black people, or only a Muslim can relate to Muslim people, or only a gay person can relate to gay people, or, heaven forbid, only a white person can relate to white people. It's utter nonsense, but it's the poisoned well which Labour and the Left in general drink from.
Now, that can be tolerated within a cohesive nation-state (especially if the constitutional arrangement hasn't been buggered up by a smirking skeleton of greed). It cannot otherwise.
Mr. Bojabob, what is this 'Battersea' to which you refer? Is it near Brundisium?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1cCgOwMeQs
No - I am all for democracy. The UK does not have a monopoly on it and the last time I checked there were no dictatorships in the EU.
I see no point to instability, if I favoured that I may as well move to the Middle East or parts of Africa.
The simple reasons why politicians did this are that either they were in denial about the nature of the EU, or they knew we'd never vote for a federal EU.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/
*start sobbing uncontrollably....*
I think that during the campaign you would have had to really not wanted to pay attention not to clock that.
The key question was: how much did Dave's deal exempt us from that journey.
The answer of course came on June 23rd. I happen to disagree but we'll never know one way or the other.
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk
As I said, two mildly interesting ideas on time and language. OK, I'll give you a third - that if the arriving aliens are significantly rather than slightly more technically and scientifically advanced than we are, they will also be more socially advanced, meaning their intent is less likely to be to kill us. In this case, that they might out of mutual self-interest want to help us.
What did you find so intelligent?
Lab 1/9
LD 6/1
Green 25/1
Tories 66/1
UKIP 250/1
https://www.bet365.com/#/AC/B5/C20520238/D1/E32416970/F2/
(OK, he does blink!)
Smaller political entities may be more homogeneous, and thus, more peaceful than bigger ones. And, the existence of lots of different countries makes it harder to prevent the flow of ideas from one country to another.
That said, even war and conflict can generate scientific, technological, and medical progress.
In a democracy you can:
1. Choose different people / parties to form the government; and
2. Thereby change policy direction
This is simply not true of the EU. The EU and its Commission is not a dictatorship in the classical sense. But it's not elected and it is simply unreformable. As the supersate emerges ever more fully formed EU citizens will have finally lost all ability to choose their masters or their policies. See my comments to Morris Dancer re the lack of demos. If you can't see that the democratic gap in an EU superstate is a chasm then you're a dumb heifer.
I see no point to instability, if I favoured that I may as well move to the Middle East or parts of Africa.
A state with no political accountability is inherently unstable. Especially so where its constituent parts used to be democracies. Genuinely - what is going to happen when Greece can't roll over its debt or Italy? What if the EU overrules Poland and Hungary on their ability to direct appointing judges? How is the Euro going to overcome its inherent flaws? The EU is deeply unstable.
I don't doubt the perspective you have and which is shared by many others is motivated by entirely benevolent desires. But I think you're wrong. The longer the EU lasts, the harder the hammer blow when it crumbles.
At the root of this line of reasoning is that the social effort to launch true interstellar travel necessitates one world governance. The fact that the nation state exists implies that there may still be a desire of one nation to hold sway over another. If that concept is dead, if the entire planet has only one government, then maybe (yes, just maybe) the desire to control others might be dead too.
That's the theory, anyway. As I said, a mildly interesting idea. But far from original. I think Asimov wrote about it a fair bit.
As I say, I happen to disagree but there is absolutely no point in discussing it now.
Ahead of next week's Budget some thoughts from CIPFA's CEO:
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/local-government-ever-bridesmaid?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
Edit: ooh you corrected it. But honest, I've never tyndalled.
Sebastian Vettel moves to just over a tenth behind Lewis Hamilton with a time of 1:21.878 on, you've guessed it, the medium tyre.
Ferrari continue to impress.
----
Ok, good reliability. But in testing times last year, according to the same feed, the Mercedes wasn't even in the top six. You'd have to be a drunken lunatic to take the headline times seriously.
It's not 2009. Alas.
It is not instability that should be feared - all systems are unstable. It is the lack of ability to recognize and adapt quickly to critical changes in an unstable system that is dangerous. The hallmark of the EU.
Not that a chime would have made much difference to the two muppets who couldn't hear the stall warning klaxon. (Yes I know that hearing is the first sense to go when under extreme mental pressure).
This accident couldn't have happened in a plane with more conventional controls.
"The aim was to make sure that working class candidates who hadn’t been to university and didn’t have working for an MP or a front benchers on their CV had the skills to shine at selection conferences."
This is what grammar schools should be about and why the Labour Party should embrace them
It'll end in tears.
Lab 1/8
LD 8/1
Cons 10/1
UKIP 40/1
Greens 50/1
1/10 Lab
6/1 LD
33/1 UKIP and Greens
100/1 Cons
Hope Paddy's odds compiler has a Hills acc!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwcTD4d7HvA
1/12 Lab
7/1 LD
50/1 Greens and Cons
100/1 UKIP
https://twitter.com/ocicat_bengals/status/836244145937121280