David your premise is as wrong as Scotlass' grossly ignorant over-simplification:
The unionist vote in this election didn't go anywhere as near tribal as normal which, added on to increase republican turnout has seen Unionists ship more seats than expected. The Unionists have long had a rebellious streak. If they don't like whats going on on their own side, they stick the boot in.
Scotslass hasn't a notion. Differential turnout and the desire on the part of many Unionists to kick the DUP up the arse this time has not changed the fundamentals in the space of 12 months from the last election.
Have no doubt, gun to the head choice, and we know all about putting guns to the head over here, there isn't a hope in hell of some kind of breakaway from the UK anytime soon.
I'm presuming the choice of which party electors think best represents them is different from their preferred constitutional settlement. Voters in Northern Ireland have the option of non sectarian parties like Alliance but overwhelmingly don't make that choice. They must WANT sectarian politics. Yup to now I understand a significant minority of nationalist voters prefer to remain in the UK, which means the cross community choice is for the UK by a wide margin. The question is whether Brexit changes anything. I'm guessing it will. Not that there will be an agreed formal incorporation by the Republic of Ireland. But as Ireland will be the North's representative with the EU instead of the UK those ties will be strengthened while ties with the UK are weakened.
Is it any different from habitual conservative or labour voters, the 28 or so percent either party can depend on for tribal loyalty no matter what?
It's different in motivation but the result might be the same. My point is that the Northern Irish are getting the dysfunctional sectarian system they voted for, regardless of what people SAY they want. Outsiders coming in and saying, it could be so different, aren't going to cut any ice, I suspect.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
Ten months ago, the Unionists had a big lead over Nationalists (whose vote share had fallen to 36%). I doubt if there's been a sufficient demographic shift to end that lead in the intervening period. What there was was a good deal of public anger towards a party that proved itself corrupt, and brass-necked about it.
Which is what I was saying. 52-55% of the seats in normal times, 40% when 'do you support Arlene Foster?' is the question. I wasn't thinking about the vote shares, although I realise it was clumsily phrased.
While that clearly doesn't suit the uniondivvie's arguments, hence the angry comments, it does reflect this small thing called reality.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
The French National Front are holding their big annual march in Paris on 1 May, between the two rounds of the presidential election. Will there be a counter-demonstration? Events on the street could have an effect on the voting. The National Front are still hated by many:
Between the rounds in May 2002, when Le Pen père had made it into the runoff round but was much further from the presidency than his daughter Marine is now, 1 million people marched against the FN in Paris.
Seems to me the republic is rather unstable right now. The notion of voting for a crook to keep the fascist out may get swept away. That's if it hasn't been already.
Both Hamon and Mélenchon call for a sixth republic. Both Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan want to rule by plebiscite.
But hold on! Macron wants to go Nordic! I strongly doubt that this guy is going to make his current poll score in the real voting.
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Downing Street is “deeply worried” about the outcome of a police investigation into claims of expenses fraud during the 2015 general election.
Senior figures fear that the results of up to half a dozen constituency votes could be declared void — causing hurried by-elections — if prosecutors decide to make an example of the party. Criminal charges against key individuals are also possible.
At one stage 24 investigations were taking place into seats where the Tories were suspected of spending more on their campaign than the legal limit. It is believed that this has been reduced to fewer than a dozen investigations in which the police believe the evidence warrants further examination.
Yesterday a police source said that files were expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service within weeks.
Key figures, including Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s chief of staff, have been dragged into the controversy even though they have not been accused of wrongdoing. Mr Timothy worked on the campaign in South Thanet, where the party stood against Nigel Farage
Given the strange and unpredictable nature of politics right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the by-elections resulted in bigger Conservative leads.
I agree with PfP. May has both positive (the Con leads) and negative reasons (ending the relevance of the expenses investigations) for wanting one, and with the Brexit Lords amendments and potential ping-pong, she might have a means of calling one that doesn't look wholly self-interested and which might be worked past the FTPA.
Glen O'Hara tweeted today that Labour's current trend would leave them on 17.5% by May 2020. While crude trends are often no more use than Peter Snow's 'just a bit of fun' by-election swings applied to the next GE, the trend on the LDs in the last parliament from early 2011 on *did* point to their 2015 outcome, and unless Labour can sort its Corbyn problem, it is possible to see continued infighting and irrelevance slowly pushing more and more away. All of which is to say that Lab MPs might take the view that it'd be better to support an election now (on current boundaries) and lose a few seats than risk losing a lot in three years' time.
I agree. I think a lot of Labour MPs would love an election now.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
You mean the tipping point that has seen the SNP in power for ten years with 50% of the vote at the last general election and yet dare not call a referendum for fear of losing it? That tipping point?
These are bad results for the Unionists in exceptional circumstances not a sign that Enda Kenny is suddenly about to achieve what Michael Collins couldn't. The real way it may prove significant in the longer term is if the DUP stubbornly hang on to Foster, hollowing out their credibility from the inside as Scottish Labour did. But Sinn Fein would not be the direct beneficiaries of that.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
As it happens, the Nationalist share of first preferences (40%) is the same as in 1998 (PBP are agnostic on the Border issue.).
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
People said the same of the US in the 1970s and Canada in the 1990s. It is surprising how strong a force inertia can prove even when strained nearly to breaking point.
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
The trouble is that unexempting would force them all to close.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
As it happens, the Nationalist share of first preferences (40%) is the same as in 1998 (PBP are agnostic on the Border issue.).
PBP are pro Brexit, an issue which Sinn Fein hammered them on in West Belfast, as they provided the effective block to 4 SF seats there (Even though it didn't really effect PBP's own chances of winning a seat !).
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
It's a difficult one to undo once done as it looks like an attack on charities. Instantly they will line up a bunch of cancer kids on the BBC.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
CBI and the Institute of Directors - two bunches of pinkos?
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
Charity shops gain from an 80% statutory relief from business rates and the local authority has the choice to give them a further 20% discretion.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
A 14% non sectarian vote is encouraging. Personally I've always thought joint sovereignty is the only long term solution for NI.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
As simple as that?
I'd add preferring government by legislatures to international institutions, tough attitudes to crime, choosing tax reductions in preference to higher public spending, favoring the private, more than the public, sector, and a general belief that British history and institutions are a good thing.
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
Charity shops gain from an 80% statutory relief from business rates and the local authority has the choice to give them a further 20% discretion.
Well you can't scrap it overnight I guess - that is politically impossible. The frog should start being boiled gradually mind.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
People said the same of the US in the 1970s and Canada in the 1990s. It is surprising how strong a force inertia can prove even when strained nearly to breaking point.
Brexit is not inertia. It is a major, transformative, specific event.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
As it happens, the Nationalist share of first preferences (40%) is the same as in 1998 (PBP are agnostic on the Border issue.).
PBP are pro Brexit, an issue which Sinn Fein hammered them on in West Belfast, as they provided the effective block to 4 SF seats there (Even though it didn't really effect PBP's own chances of winning a seat !).
"Malc If you're around I'm curious what your attitude is now towards independence. You voted Brexit but Nicola's whole strategy is based around rejoining Europe possibly going as far as using the Euro"
Is it a case of the lesser of two evils?
Roger , Apologies I was not around yesterday. I voted Brexit as it was best option to get independence referendum. My preference would be to be part of EU , though not fixated on it. I believe we will have a referendum and hopefully get the correct result this time. England has been getting more and more xenophobic as shown on here and I believe we would be far better out of it now looking after our own affairs and part of the EU.
This is interesting and I suspect a decent portion of the 30% SNP leave voters were thinking along similar lines. There was a lot of talk of tactically voting leave among yes supporters before the vote. Means that Sturgeon is unlikely to have to worry about keeping the 30% Leave vote onside for indyref2. Even among those who genuinely wanted to Leave, the priority is likely to be independence first, deal with the EU aspect second.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I have no idea, but I do know that the PBP don't designate as nationalist. If you were to take DaoDao's logic a step further you could say about half the Alliance Party seats should be unionist since they were won with overwhelming unionist leaner voters voting for them.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
People said the same of the US in the 1970s and Canada in the 1990s. It is surprising how strong a force inertia can prove even when strained nearly to breaking point.
Brexit is not inertia. It is a major, transformative, specific event.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I have no idea, but I do know that the PBP don't designate as nationalist. If you were to take DaoDao's logic a step further you could say about half the Alliance Party seats should be unionist since they were won with overwhelming unionist leaner voters voting for them.
Well, my logic was to include the Greens in the nationalist block. But I suppose you could make the same criticism there.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I have no idea, but I do know that the PBP don't designate as nationalist. If you were to take DaoDao's logic a step further you could say about half the Alliance Party seats should be unionist since they were won with overwhelming unionist leaner voters voting for them.
Neither Alliance nor Greens gain much support in Nationalist heartlands, but they should be treated as they designate themselves.
Le Pen has been summoned to meet a magistrate who is investigating her alleged use of EU funds to pay members of her staff for doing non-existent jobs. (This is a separate business from the tweeted videos.)
She says she will refuse to attend a meeting until after the campaign.
This is escalation PR. An arrest would suit her fine. (Her chief of staff has already been arrested.)
Why is everyone so worried about this £50 billion figure? Nobody ever pays fines in Europe. Just look at the French and their highly illegal ban on our beef, for which they have never paid a penny (and the cost of that comes to around £30 billion for us, incidentally).
The irony of that one is especially damning given France had over twice as many cases of BSE as Britain did - and still has it!
Maybe the UK should simple withhold any EU imposed Brexit bill until these other outstanding bills are paid...
The French National Front are holding their big annual march in Paris on 1 May, between the two rounds of the presidential election. Will there be a counter-demonstration? Events on the street could have an effect on the voting. The National Front are still hated by many:
Downing Street is “deeply worried” about the outcome of a police investigation into claims of expenses fraud during the 2015 general election.
Senior figures fear that the results of up to half a dozen constituency votes could be declared void — causing hurried by-elections — if prosecutors decide to make an example of the party. Criminal charges against key individuals are also possible.
At one stage 24 investigations were taking place into seats where the Tories were suspected of spending more on their campaign than the legal limit. It is believed that this has been reduced to fewer than a dozen investigations in which the police believe the evidence warrants further examination.
Yesterday a police source said that files were expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service within weeks.
Key figures, including Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s chief of staff, have been dragged into the controversy even though they have not been accused of wrongdoing. Mr Timothy worked on the campaign in South Thanet, where the party stood against Nigel Farage
Given the strange and unpredictable nature of politics right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the by-elections resulted in bigger Conservative leads.
Oh the irony of a situation whereby it was the main Opposition and not the Government who would now be reluctant to face a string of by-elections at this point in Parliament.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
As it happens, the Nationalist share of first preferences (40%) is the same as in 1998 (PBP are agnostic on the Border issue.).
PBP are pro Brexit, an issue which Sinn Fein hammered them on in West Belfast, as they provided the effective block to 4 SF seats there (Even though it didn't really effect PBP's own chances of winning a seat !).
Sinn Fein used to be pro-Brexit, ironically.
Well they still are in a way, aren't they? Given the opportunity they see in it.
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
Worse than that it undermines retail outlets that provide paying jobs.
But can you imagine the howls it was removed? Only way is to change the basis of taxation.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
As simple as that?
I'd add preferring government by legislatures to international institutions, tough attitudes to crime, choosing tax reductions in preference to higher public spending, favoring the private, more than the public, sector, and a general belief that British history and institutions are a good thing.
I am afraid the right does not own British history. It also seems quite keen on getting rid of the House of Lords, while being very relaxed about Britain itself ceasing to exist as a country. As for private over public, I see no evidence to suggest the English or the Welsh are more inclined to the former.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
People said the same of the US in the 1970s and Canada in the 1990s. It is surprising how strong a force inertia can prove even when strained nearly to breaking point.
Brexit is not inertia. It is a major, transformative, specific event.
I find any discussion about immigration reminds me of the four blind men feeling the elephant and assuming it's an homogenous mass.
In reality, migrants tend to reflect the culture they come from and are often the same mixture as the country they're going to - some good some bad, and most in between.
The middle class tend to see the ones taking middle class jobs as that is what they do. They see them as thrusting dynamic and useful. Like they view themselves. They are the blind man feeling the tusk. This is valuable ivory, we need more of this animal.
Unfortunately, there will always be a section who are not so useful, or integrated. They tend to mingle more with the less well-off of the home country, who are the blind man with his hand up the rear end. No, not so keen on this animal.
Not exclusively, of course, but there is a difference.
Each thinks he is right and his sample represents the whole.
A section of the middle class will still call the other blinkered racists. It's the blinkered bit that amuses me.
In essence they're all a mixture, like we are. It would be nice to accept that.
Downing Street is “deeply worried” about the outcome of a police investigation into claims of expenses fraud during the 2015 general election.
Senior figures fear that the results of up to half a dozen constituency votes could be declared void — causing hurried by-elections — if prosecutors decide to make an example of the party. Criminal charges against key individuals are also possible.
At one stage 24 investigations were taking place into seats where the Tories were suspected of spending more on their campaign than the legal limit. It is believed that this has been reduced to fewer than a dozen investigations in which the police believe the evidence warrants further examination.
Yesterday a police source said that files were expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service within weeks.
Key figures, including Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s chief of staff, have been dragged into the controversy even though they have not been accused of wrongdoing. Mr Timothy worked on the campaign in South Thanet, where the party stood against Nigel Farage
Given the strange and unpredictable nature of politics right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the by-elections resulted in bigger Conservative leads.
Oh the irony of a situation whereby it was the main Opposition and not the Government who would now be reluctant to face a string of by-elections at this point in Parliament.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I stated that the % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I stated that the % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
PBP’s ‘nationalist’ constituency reminds me of Engels remark that the revolution would start in Belfast, and of Marx’s that religion was the opiate of the people. That the Unionists managed to persuade the workers of Belfast (etc) that they were their natural home remains one of the stranger features of 20th Century British politics.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I stated that the % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
Even if these % figures (which I obtained as first preference votes from the BBC website) are slightly out, my basic premise is that the political balance in NI (and Scotland) is little more than MoE away from a radical change to the make-up of the UK. This would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
As simple as that?
I'd add preferring government by legislatures to international institutions, tough attitudes to crime, choosing tax reductions in preference to higher public spending, favoring the private, more than the public, sector, and a general belief that British history and institutions are a good thing.
I prefer minimalist government by legislation, low taxes, low regulations, a free market, free trade, private better than public, that free individuals make better choices than strangers who work for the government, believe that British history is flawed but on balance a good thing and am happy with high migration levels.
Does the final part mean I'm not right wing in your eyes?
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I stated that the % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
PBP’s ‘nationalist’ constituency reminds me of Engels remark that the revolution would start in Belfast, and of Marx’s that religion was the opiate of the people. That the Unionists managed to persuade the workers of Belfast (etc) that they were their natural home remains one of the stranger features of 20th Century British politics.
People don't always prioritize class-consciousness.
"Malc If you're around I'm curious what your attitude is now towards independence. You voted Brexit but Nicola's whole strategy is based around rejoining Europe possibly going as far as using the Euro"
Is it a case of the lesser of two evils?
Roger , Apologies I was not around yesterday. I voted Brexit as it was best option to get independence referendum. My preference would be to be part of EU , though not fixated on it. I believe we will have a referendum and hopefully get the correct result this time. England has been getting more and more xenophobic as shown on here and I believe we would be far better out of it now looking after our own affairs and part of the EU.
I agree. In fact i'm envious. Hopefully they will extend rights of citizenship to those of us with a Scottish mother!
And allow Scots in the rest of UK a vote if it happens
If they want a vote they should live in the country. How stupid would it be for people living in USA , Australia etc to decide what Scotland does. You think we should be allowed to vote in any country's election if we want to G, come on be sensible.
This is a matter affecting all the UK and therefore all Scots in the UK should have a vote, but I accept it is unlikely to happen.
They don't live in Scotland , so why should they decide what happens there. Would be as stupid as me deciding matters in England.
I think you need to tell that to the SNP members in the HOC
Think you will find that the SNP have never ever voted on English matters. They only vote on matters that will affect Scotland, unlike English MP's who decide everything that happens in Scotland.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
As simple as that?
I'd add preferring government by legislatures to international institutions, tough attitudes to crime, choosing tax reductions in preference to higher public spending, favoring the private, more than the public, sector, and a general belief that British history and institutions are a good thing.
I prefer minimalist government by legislation, low taxes, low regulations, a free market, free trade, private better than public, that free individuals make better choices than strangers who work for the government, believe that British history is flawed but on balance a good thing and am happy with high migration levels.
Does the final part mean I'm not right wing in your eyes?
No. I'm not saying that you have to sign up to a party line on each issue.
I find any discussion about immigration reminds me of the four blind men feeling the elephant and assuming it's an homogenous mass.
In reality, migrants tend to reflect the culture they come from and are often the same mixture as the country they're going to - some good some bad, and most in between.
The middle class tend to see the ones taking middle class jobs as that is what they do. They see them as thrusting dynamic and useful. Like they view themselves. They are the blind man feeling the tusk. This is valuable ivory, we need more of this animal.
Unfortunately, there will always be a section who are not so useful, or integrated. They tend to mingle more with the less well-off of the home country, who are the blind man with his hand up the rear end. No, not so keen on this animal.
Not exclusively, of course, but there is a difference.
Each thinks he is right and his sample represents the whole.
A section of the middle class will still call the other blinkered racists. It's the blinkered bit that amuses me.
In essence they're all a mixture, like we are. It would be nice to accept that.
This is a good post. The out-group homogeneity effect applies to much more than just ethnic groups, incidentally.
Downing Street is “deeply worried” about the outcome of a police investigation into claims of expenses fraud during the 2015 general election.
Senior figures fear that the results of up to half a dozen constituency votes could be declared void — causing hurried by-elections — if prosecutors decide to make an example of the party. Criminal charges against key individuals are also possible.
At one stage 24 investigations were taking place into seats where the Tories were suspected of spending more on their campaign than the legal limit. It is believed that this has been reduced to fewer than a dozen investigations in which the police believe the evidence warrants further examination.
Yesterday a police source said that files were expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service within weeks.
Key figures, including Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s chief of staff, have been dragged into the controversy even though they have not been accused of wrongdoing. Mr Timothy worked on the campaign in South Thanet, where the party stood against Nigel Farage
Given the strange and unpredictable nature of politics right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the by-elections resulted in bigger Conservative leads.
It depends which seats are involved, just imagine if some of the seats are Con/Lib Dem seats.
Even if not, having a proper handful of seats of theirs needing to be rerun due to corrupt practices surely is enough to hit their image generally. Granted, everyone seems to be playing at best loose with some of the rules, but having to rerun plenty of seats looks a lot more serious even if others did things in a similar if less egregious vein,
I think the CPS would think very long and hard before voiding half a dozen elections. They would effectively be saying the last general election was corrupted and the government illegitimate. It would arguably call into question whether there would have been a referendum.
I have no knowledge of the cases, but i suspect a maximum fine / strong censure but short of voiding results is more likely (assuming of course there is built and evidence)
I would agree with that, and add a call for a tweaking of the campaign spending regulations.
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
CBI and the Institute of Directors - two bunches of pinkos?
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
CBI and the Institute of Directors - two bunches of pinkos?
Well, all groups have subsets of opinion. Among englishmen personally the jocks have me over a barrel as I don't want to get rid of anybody so they can demand a great deal, but then you have those tired of the perceived animosity and of course those who think it would be good on principle.
There is also nothing logically inconsistent in the belief that the continuation of the Union is desirable in principle, but may not be possible in practice.
It's an unfortunate feature that people with different political outlooks find it increasingly hard to put up with each other. Scotland and London want left wing government. Non-Metropolitan England, and increasingly Wales, want right wing government.
Define right wing.
Lower immigration.
CBI and the Institute of Directors - two bunches of pinkos?
Mr. Max, the optics of massive warehouses getting lower rates and high street shops seeing hikes is quite ugly.
But with the Opposition led by Corbyn, May could personally behead a thousand guide dogs, throw a sackful of orphans into the Thames, and send in the tanks to obliterate Luton, and she'd still be miles ahead.
It seems the rates are being changed to reflect the property value alone, not its current usage. Which completely ignores the social value that a particular enterprise may be contributing. A high-street shop is more valuable to the community that some warehouse on the outskirts.
I guess high streets will end up filled with charity shops.
I think you are correct but off topic does the charity shop phenomenon exist elsewhere.? My town (pop. c 65,000) has well over 30 but wherever I travel in the world I don't see any. It may of course not be looking in the right places but perhaps some of our foreign-domiciled posters could enlighten me. My theory is that, in Europe at least, people don't buy as much stuff as the Brits and therefore aren't giving it away after a year or two. Shopping seems to be the national sport in the UK to an extent that I don't notice elsewhere except America.
Charity shops have a rates exemption here.
That really should not be the case. Unless the government (At all levels) believes its own spending to be wasteful and poor, exempting charity shops from rates is a false signal of virtue.
The trouble is that unexempting would force them all to close.
I am not wholly convinced that would be a bad thing, at least as regards the big charities. Second hand book shops, real ones paying rates and wages and taxes have, save for a few specialists here and there, been driven to extinction. Shonky shops the same.
Some of these charities seem more involved in political lobbying than what would one normally think of as charitable work or are actually running a business (some-times taking contracts to provide services to the public sector) paying full market salaries. Why such organisations should be given any charitable status is beyond me.
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
This is a very good point. The Anglo-Welsh state would, in this case, be the direct successor of the UK just as Russia was to the Soviet Union...
...More broadly, the breakup of the UK would bring compensations as well as drawbacks. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not just distinguished from England and Wales by the Brexit outcome; they both contain very large, permanent and noisy popular movements for secession, and they cost buckets of money to keep.
I've argued before that a rUK would not be a successor state, but simply the continuation of the existing state. The USSR would not have stopped being the USSR if Estonia and Belarus had left. (IRL, the USSR was formally wound up, not assumed to be nonexistent, so it ended de jure as well as de facto)
It also needs to be pointed out that Scotland produces more than it consumes and is a net profit, not a net cost: it does not cost "us" buckets of money. Northern Ireland is closer, but it is still a functioning economy: plants are grown, metal is bashed, goods and services are made and sold. It is not something that should be tossed away on a whim or because its politics are thought boting.
Are we heading for a General Election in LESS than 9 weeks time?
Judging by the headline in today's Times "Election fraud inquiry rocks No 10", La May may be forced to make a virtue out of necessity by forcing her hand in rushing to the polls on 4 May to curtail the grim prospect of her party having to submit to a number of possible high profile by-election contests, brought about as a result of police investigations into allegations of expenses fraud by the Blue Team during the 2015 General Election. According to the newspaper, senior figures fear that the results of up to half a dozen constituency votes could be declared void. Were this to happen, she might very easily find the Tories' barely double digit majority is blown away in one fell swoop, causing massive unease within the Parliamentary party and hugely re-energising Labour, thereby ensuring that the Copeland horror story might very quickly be swept away and quickly forgotten about.
Thanks to the likes of Michael Crick, etc, this is a story which simply won't go away and odds of 4.0 or slightly more are available against a GE being held during the course of 2017 which looks like decent value to me on this basis alone, never mind about Brexit and other considerations.
I'm on for a nifty fifty, but be sure to DYOR.
Not much time left to call an election for May 4th. The last day for a dissolution would be Monday March 27th. Moreover, a Commons vote would have had to take place to authorise that - sometime in the previous week. Somehow I cannot see Corbyn agreeing to it under present circumstances.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
People said the same of the US in the 1970s and Canada in the 1990s. It is surprising how strong a force inertia can prove even when strained nearly to breaking point.
Brexit is not inertia. It is a major, transformative, specific event.
A transformative event that make this country significantly poorer and significantly less influential. All because some folk hate foreigners coming in and succeeding while they themselves continue to flounder.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Chin up Southern, you are beginning to sound like the Rikki Fulton charactor the Rev IM Jolly. I really doubt a desire by those on the losing side of a referendum and now hoping to find themselves in a position to say I told you so will heal divisions or cause the break up of the UK.
I prefer minimalist government by legislation, low taxes, low regulations, a free market, free trade, private better than public, that free individuals make better choices than strangers who work for the government, believe that British history is flawed but on balance a good thing and am happy with high migration levels.
And yet there are people who post here (not necessarily you) who call themselves right-wing who want to:
* Eschew the various European markets (single, customs, EEA, EFTA, etc) - hence anti-free-trade * Impose a Burka ban - hence anti-personal-choice * Deport Muslims - hence maximalist-government * Splurge on various Government desiderata (eg Help-To-Buy, reduce the deficit slower) - hence high-taxation * Desire a CANZUK or an Anglo-Welsh state - hence anti-British-state * Wish to limit migration to a low number - hence anti-high-migration
I cleave to the tribal notion of politics: people pick a side for tribal reasons, not according to their principles
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
I'm expecting an early win tonight for David Haye in his fight against Tony Bellew.
Ladbrokes are offering odds of 2.6 against him winning in the first three rounds, but those nice people at Wm. Hill are offering appreciably better odds of 3.06 if one places a combination bet on the individual rounds as follows:
Round 1 Stake 27.8% at 11.0 decimal Round 2 Stake 34.0% at 9.0 decimal Round 3 Stake 38.2% at 8.0 decimal
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
No doubt, but I actually meant it was interesting in terms of the dynamics in the White House. Tillerson vs Bannon on this issue, as probably on a number of others.
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
No doubt, but I actually meant it was interesting in terms of the dynamics in the White House. Tillerson vs Bannon on this issue, as probably on a number of others.
The guy really is mad - how could people vote for this idiot?
I love the fact that you're forever on here calling people swivelled eyed loons, fascists, racists or c**ts, but over the past month, you yourself have been buckwild, foaming at the mouth. Lovely to see. Anyway, it's obvious that your strand of politics has failed a significant chunk of the population around the western world and they turned to something different. Now, I'm not saying that that "something different" is any good or even nice, but there it is. The fact that you don't want to engage with them is going to be your biggest problem.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
Hate to point this out to you but PBP do not designate as nationalist.
I make those shares 45.3% Unionist 42.2% nationalist, 10.8% non-sectarian. Where are daodao's figures from?
I stated that the % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
I'm not disputing what your figures were. I'm questioning how accurate they were. Mine however were from the Guardian final results page (including transfers).
The center needs to develop a new policy agenda that shows people they will get support to help them through the change that’s happening around them. At the heart of this has to be an alliance between those driving the technological revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and those responsible for public policy in government.
Perhaps the next big thing will be virtual government.
The guy really is mad - how could people vote for this idiot?
The snag was that the alternative was Hilary Clinton, who made very similar comments about hacking, police bias, politically inspired smear campaigns, etc. etc. (albeit more elegantly phrased than Trump).
Had Sanders or Bayh been the nominee this would have been the most one-sided contest since Roosevelt vs Landon.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.
Westminster has been happily voting to send power to Brussels for the last 40 years and has approved 3 regional assemblies
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.
Westminster has been happily voting to send power to Brussels for the last 40 years and has approved 3 regional assemblies
It's amazing how after 40 years of 'sending power' to Brussels and to the home nations, Westminster still has absolute power to do anything, as we're seeing with Article 50. It can impose direct rule on Northern Ireland, just as it can impose direct rule on the United Kingdom as a whole.
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.
Westminster has been happily voting to send power to Brussels for the last 40 years and has approved 3 regional assemblies
It's amazing how after 40 years of 'sending power' to Brussels and to the home nations, Westminster still has absolute power to do anything, as we're seeing with Article 50. It can impose direct rule on Northern Ireland, just as it can impose direct rule on the United Kingdom as a whole.
left to its own sentiment HoC would overwhemiingly vote to stay in the EU.
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
I don't think that's fair. Exxon does not benefit from a move to renewables in the energy generation mix, or an increase in the proportion of electric cars. It is a clear loser from the energy mix going renewable.
I'd also point out that Rex is looking after the US now, not ExxonMobil.
That's ironic. The Mail is siding with the Polish bloke, but thanks to the policies it has advocated he will be the one deported.
Perhaps we should take the Saudi approach when a foreigner is involved in a car crash: "Of course it was your fault - if you hadn't been in the country there wouldn't have been a crash"
An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.
You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
The % votes/seats are as follows: Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP) Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.
Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.
Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.
Westminster has been happily voting to send power to Brussels for the last 40 years and has approved 3 regional assemblies
It's amazing how after 40 years of 'sending power' to Brussels and to the home nations, Westminster still has absolute power to do anything, as we're seeing with Article 50. It can impose direct rule on Northern Ireland, just as it can impose direct rule on the United Kingdom as a whole.
As it should. There has to be a source of power ultimately and what better than our national Parliament to be that source even if it defers it elsewhere?
It's amazing how after 40 years of 'sending power' to Brussels and to the home nations, Westminster still has absolute power to do anything, as we're seeing with Article 50. It can impose direct rule on Northern Ireland, just as it can impose direct rule on the United Kingdom as a whole.
As it should. There has to be a source of power ultimately and what better than our national Parliament to be that source even if it defers it elsewhere?
A potential Brexit shows that it is the source of power, even if we change our minds and stay in the EU. Even if we join the Euro.
The guy really is mad - how could people vote for this idiot?
The snag was that the alternative was Hilary Clinton, who made very similar comments about hacking, police bias, politically inspired smear campaigns, etc. etc. (albeit more elegantly phrased than Trump).
Had Sanders or Bayh been the nominee this would have been the most one-sided contest since Roosevelt vs Landon.
If Sanders had been 20 years younger, Hillary couldn't have stopped him. Which says something about the state of the Democratic Party. Which I blame Hillary for - she spent a lot of time and effort trashing potential rivals (shades of G. Brown)....
The guy really is mad - how could people vote for this idiot?
I love the fact that you're forever on here calling people swivelled eyed loons, fascists, racists or c**ts, but over the past month, you yourself have been buckwild, foaming at the mouth. Lovely to see. Anyway, it's obvious that your strand of politics has failed a significant chunk of the population around the western world and they turned to something different. Now, I'm not saying that that "something different" is any good or even nice, but there it is. The fact that you don't want to engage with them is going to be your biggest problem.
The guy hates this country,you can tell by his post.
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
I don't think that's fair. Exxon does not benefit from a move to renewables in the energy generation mix, or an increase in the proportion of electric cars. It is a clear loser from the energy mix going renewable.
I'd also point out that Rex is looking after the US now, not ExxonMobil.
Exxon would benefit from a switch from 'dirty' coal to 'clean' natural gas for power generation, above and beyond what is happening already.
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
I don't think that's fair. Exxon does not benefit from a move to renewables in the energy generation mix, or an increase in the proportion of electric cars. It is a clear loser from the energy mix going renewable.
I'd also point out that Rex is looking after the US now, not ExxonMobil.
Exxon would benefit from a switch from 'dirty' coal to 'clean' natural gas for power generation, above and beyond what is happening already.
Exxon has virtually no US natural gas production, so no it wouldn't.
(It does have some terrific non-US natural gas assets, such as Papua New Guinea LNG. But that sells into the Chinese, Korean and Japanese markets. I guess you could argue that it's possible that the US sticking with Paris encourages these places to stick with gas fired generation - but that's happening with Paris or without.)
It looks like Trump could be back-peddling on his promise to remove the US from the all-important Paris Agreement. No surprises that white supremacist and fascist c*nt, Steve Bannon is leading the call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Let's see how this pans out but there may yet be hope...
Of course he is. New regulations make it more expensive for new market entrants increasing Exxon's economic moat
I don't think that's fair. Exxon does not benefit from a move to renewables in the energy generation mix, or an increase in the proportion of electric cars. It is a clear loser from the energy mix going renewable.
I'd also point out that Rex is looking after the US now, not ExxonMobil.
Exxon would benefit from a switch from 'dirty' coal to 'clean' natural gas for power generation, above and beyond what is happening already.
Exxon has virtually no US natural gas production, so no it wouldn't.
If was thinking globally, not just US. Sorry for not being clear.
Comments
While that clearly doesn't suit the uniondivvie's arguments, hence the angry comments, it does reflect this small thing called reality.
Seems to me the republic is rather unstable right now. The notion of voting for a crook to keep the fascist out may get swept away. That's if it hasn't been already.
Both Hamon and Mélenchon call for a sixth republic.
Both Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan want to rule by plebiscite.
But hold on! Macron wants to go Nordic! I strongly doubt that this guy is going to make his current poll score in the real voting.
These are bad results for the Unionists in exceptional circumstances not a sign that Enda Kenny is suddenly about to achieve what Michael Collins couldn't. The real way it may prove significant in the longer term is if the DUP stubbornly hang on to Foster, hollowing out their credibility from the inside as Scottish Labour did. But Sinn Fein would not be the direct beneficiaries of that.
"CBI: We need immigrants in the UK because young Britons won’t move to get jobs."
"The IoD has called on Theresa May to scrap the 'tens of thousands' target for net migration in an overhaul of policy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/ukip-donor-aaron-banks-dubs-leader-paul-nuttall-weak-partys/
She says she will refuse to attend a meeting until after the campaign.
This is escalation PR. An arrest would suit her fine. (Her chief of staff has already been arrested.)
But can you imagine the howls it was removed? Only way is to change the basis of taxation.
In reality, migrants tend to reflect the culture they come from and are often the same mixture as the country they're going to - some good some bad, and most in between.
The middle class tend to see the ones taking middle class jobs as that is what they do. They see them as thrusting dynamic and useful. Like they view themselves. They are the blind man feeling the tusk. This is valuable ivory, we need more of this animal.
Unfortunately, there will always be a section who are not so useful, or integrated. They tend to mingle more with the less well-off of the home country, who are the blind man with his hand up the rear end. No, not so keen on this animal.
Not exclusively, of course, but there is a difference.
Each thinks he is right and his sample represents the whole.
A section of the middle class will still call the other blinkered racists. It's the blinkered bit that amuses me.
In essence they're all a mixture, like we are. It would be nice to accept that.
Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP)
Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat
Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)
I classified PBP as nationalist as while they are nominally non-sectarian (like most far left organisations), they are a Dublin-based party with almost exclusive support from catholic areas of NI, in particular Belfast West and Derry.
I can just imagine some of the suggestions.
Does the final part mean I'm not right wing in your eyes?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/climate-change-trump.html?_r=0
But both know the needs of business. Head-banging ToryBrexit nutters don't.
Some of these charities seem more involved in political lobbying than what would one normally think of as charitable work or are actually running a business (some-times taking contracts to provide services to the public sector) paying full market salaries. Why such organisations should be given any charitable status is beyond me.
https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/838000600587599872
It also needs to be pointed out that Scotland produces more than it consumes and is a net profit, not a net cost: it does not cost "us" buckets of money. Northern Ireland is closer, but it is still a functioning economy: plants are grown, metal is bashed, goods and services are made and sold. It is not something that should be tossed away on a whim or because its politics are thought boting.
Here is Alex Salmond's tribute to the Rev IM Jolly for Children In Need a few years ago.
Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8OMGWVPfbI
* Eschew the various European markets (single, customs, EEA, EFTA, etc) - hence anti-free-trade
* Impose a Burka ban - hence anti-personal-choice
* Deport Muslims - hence maximalist-government
* Splurge on various Government desiderata (eg Help-To-Buy, reduce the deficit slower) - hence high-taxation
* Desire a CANZUK or an Anglo-Welsh state - hence anti-British-state
* Wish to limit migration to a low number - hence anti-high-migration
I cleave to the tribal notion of politics: people pick a side for tribal reasons, not according to their principles
Off Topic
***** Betting Post *****
I'm expecting an early win tonight for David Haye in his fight against Tony Bellew.
Ladbrokes are offering odds of 2.6 against him winning in the first three rounds, but those nice people at Wm. Hill are offering appreciably better odds of 3.06 if one places a combination bet on the individual rounds as follows:
Round 1 Stake 27.8% at 11.0 decimal
Round 2 Stake 34.0% at 9.0 decimal
Round 3 Stake 38.2% at 8.0 decimal
DYOR and good luck should you follow me in.
Anyway, it's obvious that your strand of politics has failed a significant chunk of the population around the western world and they turned to something different. Now, I'm not saying that that "something different" is any good or even nice, but there it is. The fact that you don't want to engage with them is going to be your biggest problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/tony-blair-against-populism-the-center-must-hold.html
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/838005887797194752
Perhaps the next big thing will be virtual government.
Had Sanders or Bayh been the nominee this would have been the most one-sided contest since Roosevelt vs Landon.
The referendum removed that option.
I'd also point out that Rex is looking after the US now, not ExxonMobil.
(It does have some terrific non-US natural gas assets, such as Papua New Guinea LNG. But that sells into the Chinese, Korean and Japanese markets. I guess you could argue that it's possible that the US sticking with Paris encourages these places to stick with gas fired generation - but that's happening with Paris or without.)
NEW THREAD