I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.
Sorry, Boss, but why is that?
Bandwidth & server time is not free. I've no idea how much traffic pb generates; I would imagine it can be substantial during interesting times.
F1: heard this yesterday but there's a new snippet on the BBC F1 feed about Gilles Simon (not to be confused with a French tennis player) leaving Honda.
"He [Honda spokesman] refused to comment on reports Simon left as his ideas were being ignored."
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.
Sorry, Boss, but why is that?
Bandwidth & server time is not free. I've no idea how much traffic pb generates; I would imagine it can be substantial during interesting times.
Many thanks. Will remember that when contribution time comes round again.
What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.
If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.
I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.
She's talking about "the ancient unity of the British Isles". That includes the ROI. An interesting proposition.
I still maintain it's complete bollocks, even with your additional insight.
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.
JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.
'Some commentators' indeed!
I've mentioned that instance before.
It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.
snip.
Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.
Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?
Robert Hazell thinks repeal is actually rather more difficult than it sounds:
"There is also brave talk about repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: for example, in the backbench debate last October. But this is wishful thinking, because repeal would be far from straightforward. It would require legislation, which would have to pass both Houses, with particular difficulties in the Lords. The legislation would face technical and political difficulties. The political difficulty is that reverting to the status quo ante would confer on the Prime Minister the advantage of choosing the date of the next election."
Mr. F, be a while until I can even consider getting something else, but how have they handled translating from Polish? Have they Anglicised the way we do (usually) with names like Achilles, or kept to a more Polish flavour (in The Witcher 3 I think nekkers are spelt with two Ks, whether it'd be more English to go for necker)?
FTPA and early elections. Why now? What's changed? CCHQ panic that the election overspends will soon come to court?
Edit: can't spell FTPA.
That, or the huge poll leads!
At least one of the seats is a Tory/Labour marginal. If they all have to be re-run, I can't imagine them losing that, even if they could lose a few to the Lib.Dems.
So what if she ends up with a majority of five. Labour in 1977 had a majority of ... what was it, one??
'Large majorities make for poor government'. Francis Pym, who was later sacked either for that or being a wet.
Hi Mike. Which street were you born in? I was born very close to this constituency on Brooklands Rd in Sale.
Mike wasn't born, he was conceived and created by the amalgamation of stunning Liberal bar charts in post war Britain.
I was born in a nursing home in Victoria Park.
My very first job, over 50 years ago, as a pharmacist was in Longsight, part (I think) of the constituency. On the first Saturday the wife of a local GP phoned and asked me to ‘put down the cat, as it had been savaged by a bulldog.’ I refused, saying she should call the vet, and was told that ‘Mr X, (my predecessor), always did it!” I was left wondering.
Mr. F, be a while until I can even consider getting something else, but how have they handled translating from Polish? Have they Anglicised the way we do (usually) with names like Achilles, or kept to a more Polish flavour (in The Witcher 3 I think nekkers are spelt with two Ks, whether it'd be more English to go for necker)?
The Polish and Celtic names are quite recognisable. Sometimes English equivalents are used. For species and titles, mostly English equivalents are used.
All the govt has to do is pass a one line enabling bill for the election "Notwithstanding the provisions of the FTPA, ..."
Such a bill would have to pass the HoL - Most unlikely especially as the government has no mandate for repeal and the PM has repeatedly said there will be no early election.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
Don't you think you should mention that you hardly impartial either, what with you being a UKIP candidate at the last General Election.
Mr. F, cheers, just curious, as the nun said to the football team.
Using foreign names can be a nice shorthand for setting up a sense of time/place and/or easily distinguishing between differing backgrounds (if you have three characters called Heinrich, Pierre, and Jean-Luc, it's not hard to spot the odd one out).
Only a little way into The Jewish War, but Mark Anthony's made an appearance. Reads like a little Shakespearian nudge amidst the 'proper' Latin names (weirdly, Pompey doesn't stand out as much. Not sure why).
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.
That is, of course, the standard response when you can't rebut the actual point.
I do like it here. Part of what I like is that we pick holes in each other's arguments...
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
Don't you think you should mention that you hardly impartial either, what with you being a UKIP candidate at the last General Election.
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked, shocked and stunned that some PBers have partisan views on the nations greatest politics site ....
I shall now lie down in a darkened room and contemplate the errors of my ways .... and especially agreeing to Mrs JackW latest trip to Paris ....
All the govt has to do is pass a one line enabling bill for the election "Notwithstanding the provisions of the FTPA, ..."
Such a bill would have to pass the HoL - Most unlikely especially as the government has no mandate for repeal and the PM has repeatedly said there will be no early election.
The Lords would be courageous to try to resist an election being called.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
Don't you think you should mention that you hardly impartial either, what with you being a UKIP candidate at the last General Election.
I wasn't (I refused to do some work for UKIP during the campaign, as it happens), and I criticised it too.
All the govt has to do is pass a one line enabling bill for the election "Notwithstanding the provisions of the FTPA, ..."
Such a bill would have to pass the HoL - Most unlikely especially as the government has no mandate for repeal and the PM has repeatedly said there will be no early election.
The Lords would be courageous to try to resist an election being called.
The Lords have no power to resist an election called under the terms of the FTPA but they do have the power to resist repeal of the FTPA.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
Don't you think you should mention that you hardly impartial either, what with you being a UKIP candidate at the last General Election.
I wasn't (I refused to do some work for UKIP during the campaign, as it happens), and I criticised it too.
Please examine the thread. If you look closely, you'll see I wasn't replying to you.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.
I think it was Blair and his determination to politicise everything that got that particular ball rolling. The age of barefaced shamelessness was born in the culture of spin. Before Blair we didn't see it really, or not nearly so much. Major, Maggie, Wilson, Callaghan - all pretty straightforward whatever you think of their politics. Blair - total scuzzbucket and probably the most disliked man in the UK.
I don't think he was a liar. Politicians obfuscate because they have no choice. They are asked questions that can't be answered.
If you cast your mind back to Michael Crick's book 'Stranger than Fiction' about Jeffrey Archer and how it ruined his budding political career and stopped him becoming Mayor of London you can see how standards have shifted. In fact he was jailed for 4 years for a very minor perjury that is a daily occurance with Trump.
What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.
If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.
I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.
Here the full piece in all it's half baked, ahistorical, irreconcilable, cod mystical glory.*
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.
I think it was Blair and his determination to politicise everything that got that particular ball rolling. The age of barefaced shamelessness was born in the culture of spin. Before Blair we didn't see it really, or not nearly so much. Major, Maggie, Wilson, Callaghan - all pretty straightforward whatever you think of their politics. Blair - total scuzzbucket and probably the most disliked man in the UK.
I don't think he was a liar. Politicians obfuscate because they have no choice. They are asked questions that can't be answered.
If you cast your mind back to Michael Crick's book 'Stranger than Fiction' about Jeffrey Archer and how it ruined his budding political career and stopped him becoming Mayor of London you can see how standards have shifted. In fact he was jailed for 4 years for a very minor perjury that is a daily occurance with Trump.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.
I think it was Blair and his determination to politicise everything that got that particular ball rolling. The age of barefaced shamelessness was born in the culture of spin. Before Blair we didn't see it really, or not nearly so much. Major, Maggie, Wilson, Callaghan - all pretty straightforward whatever you think of their politics. Blair - total scuzzbucket and probably the most disliked man in the UK.
I don't think he was a liar. Politicians obfuscate because they have no choice. They are asked questions that can't be answered.
You don't think Blair was a liar? !!! That's a brave view - in the Sir Humphrey sense. Are you of the opinion that the one act that has defined him and drives his deep unpopularity was based upon a truth? The dossier was not dodgy? He didn't deliberately lie to parliament?
I was bored yesterday and looked at some school budget figures across local authorities (work I need to do for something else). It's shocking how great some of the per pupil differences are (well over £2000 or 40% a child in some places)
And I do remember that London does seem to get significantly more (even once you give them 20% as a London weighting),
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.
That is, of course, the standard response when you can't rebut the actual point.
I do like it here. Part of what I like is that we pick holes in each other's arguments...
In these days of post-truthiness we all have an ineluctable duty to point at Nuttall and laugh at him till our sides ache, and then point and laugh some more, to get the message across that lying to the electorate sucks. It's Nuttall that kippers should be frothing at, for making the party even more of a laughing stock than it used to be.
What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.
If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.
I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.
Here the full piece in all it's half baked, ahistorical, irreconcilable, cod mystical glory.*
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.
I've mentioned that instance before.
It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.
But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.
Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.
Why is it ludicrous? Most countries have similar rules and most assemblies in Britain get by with fixed terms. If the consequences of trying to game it are ludicrous, that's a feture not a bug.
Because it has removed the prerogative power of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, leaving us situations like we might well face in a few months time, where a GE is needed to sort out a major or insoluble political issue, but we can't have one unless the government votes no confidence in itself or there is an opposition that is not terrified of an electoral wipeout and will join for the 2/3rd majority.
The 5 year term is also long, iirc, compared to other countries who have this.
I think it's long for 100% of MPs to be up for re-election each time. But that's another debate...
What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.
If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.
I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.
Here the full piece in all it's half baked, ahistorical, irreconcilable, cod mystical glory.*
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.
I think it was Blair and his determination to politicise everything that got that particular ball rolling. The age of barefaced shamelessness was born in the culture of spin. Before Blair we didn't see it really, or not nearly so much. Major, Maggie, Wilson, Callaghan - all pretty straightforward whatever you think of their politics. Blair - total scuzzbucket and probably the most disliked man in the UK.
I don't think he was a liar. Politicians obfuscate because they have no choice. They are asked questions that can't be answered.
If you cast your mind back to Michael Crick's book 'Stranger than Fiction' about Jeffrey Archer and how it ruined his budding political career and stopped him becoming Mayor of London you can see how standards have shifted. In fact he was jailed for 4 years for a very minor perjury that is a daily occurance with Trump.
Blair obfuscated alright. He also lied, though he was more charming than most when doing it, for a time.
@PolhomeEditor: Asked if he wants a snap election, Jeremy Corbyn says: I want to see a different government, I don't want to see this government in office.
when Facebook asked the BBC to “provide examples of the material”, the Beeb’s lawyers should have sounded alarm bells. Instead, the BBC “did so”, and Facebook then reported them to the National Crime Agency
5...4...3...2...1...Justin Short Straws appears to tell us that there is precedent from the 1905 election in bognor that economic compentence numbers don't matter.
@PolhomeEditor: Asked if he wants a snap election, Jeremy Corbyn says: I want to see a different government, I don't want to see this government in office.
I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.
If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.
That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.
So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ? While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)
Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.
If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.
Sorry, Boss, but why is that?
Bandwidth & server time is not free. I've no idea how much traffic pb generates; I would imagine it can be substantial during interesting times.
It'll be a fixed cost with fixed diskspace and a soft-capped bandwidth allocation if the server is on anything resembling a standard hosting package.
So more visitors doesn't mean more cost until you hit a volume threshold where they insist you upgrade to the next package level.
That's the same with the pricing structure for Vanilla - hit a certain number of page refreshes and the price goes up to a bigger package. That's probably what Mike is getting at. It doesn't mean that it's costing him 1p from his wallet every time we say something.
On the contrary, every time we comment or otherwise refresh the page Mike makes advertising revenue. So it's in his interests for people to say stuff.
What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.
If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.
I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.
I genuinely admire the English for their equanimity and for saying it's up to Scotland to decide whether to continue in the Union and therefore any result is acceptable. In reality the United Kingdom won't exist any more in a meaningful form. It will have a profound effect on England's place in the world and will see Wales status diminished as a nation.
England and Scotland didn't manage very well before 1707, hence the Union. It was mostly a business deal, and not because of any brotherly love.
B******l Road, Sandbanks (BPF543) The borrowers continue to await the planning decision including the adjacent site, which was expected by the end of February. The planning officer who was dealing with the decision is off on long term sick leave, and the borrowers are still waiting for the application to be reallocated to another officer.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
When I drove through Cheshire last, I thought to myself that this is just like Rusholme.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
when Facebook asked the BBC to “provide examples of the material”, the Beeb’s lawyers should have sounded alarm bells. Instead, the BBC “did so”, and Facebook then reported them to the National Crime Agency
Facebook seems to have some funny rules for what material they take down.
Rows about the removal of apparently innocuous material seem to get absurdly high levels of news coverage from time to time (quite often a "front page story" on the BBC website!).
And yet I have reported really gruesome, bloody images to FB in the past of the dead bodies of someone killed by Islamists, replete with hundreds of comments underneath saying things like this is what the **** deserved for violating her religion (and, to be fair, even more people expressing sympathy with the poor lass - though despite them being the numerical majority of the comments, it was the nastiest ones that had got hundreds of upvotes!) but I got a message back saying that the images did not violate their policies!
I was astonished by that - I had presumed they would fall under the aegis of anti-terror or anti-incitement legislation, even if basic human decency wasn't enough.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
The roadworks on the M6 in Ozzie's constituency are a complete pain. I wonder whether they'll be finished before the ones on the M3 near me?
when Facebook asked the BBC to “provide examples of the material”, the Beeb’s lawyers should have sounded alarm bells. Instead, the BBC “did so”, and Facebook then reported them to the National Crime Agency
Facebook seems to have some funny rules for what material they take down.
Rows about the removal of apparently innocuous material seem to get absurdly high levels of news coverage from time to time (quite often a "front page story" on the BBC website!).
And yet I have reported really gruesome, bloody images to FB in the past of the dead bodies of someone killed by Islamists, replete with hundreds of comments underneath saying things like this is what the **** deserved for violating her religion (and, to be fair, even more people expressing sympathy with the poor lass - though despite them being the numerical majority of the comments, it was the nastiest ones that had got hundreds of upvotes!) but I got a message back saying that the images did not violate their policies!
I was astonished by that - I had presumed they would fall under the aegis of anti-terror or anti-incitement legislation, even if basic human decency wasn't enough.
Don't disagree with any of that. My point one in this case it seems that rather than the bbc researchers showing facebook in person to where on the site this material is or names of the private groups where the material is being shared, they downloaded example images and sent them to Facebook.
I lived in Styal in the Tatton constituency for two years back in 2009-11, and then moved next door to Gorton back in 2011, you need to spend a lot of time in both to appreciate their similarities.
Is this poll before or after we found out, for the 2nd year in a row, that Corbyn can't even fill in his tax form?
Why shouldn't Corbyn employ an accountant to fill out his tax return? Or was your meaning that he/someone had filled it out incorrectly? If the latter, you need to use a broader range of media sources.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
The roadworks on the M6 in Ozzie's constituency are a complete pain. I wonder whether they'll be finished before the ones on the M3 near me?
If they put together an integrated set of road improvements in the North West, it would be such a boon to the economy.
B******l Road, Sandbanks (BPF543) The borrowers continue to await the planning decision including the adjacent site, which was expected by the end of February. The planning officer who was dealing with the decision is off on long term sick leave, and the borrowers are still waiting for the application to be reallocated to another officer.
A few years ago I applied for planning permission. The deadline was 24/12 and permission was granted that day. It must have been one hell of a party:
I received permission to build a conservatory and convert my garage into accommodation. I actually applied to extend my garage and build a porch (this was a very uncontroversial tick box exercise).
Apparently according to the description in the documents I then received my house is both semi detached and detached with a small and a large front garden on a corner plot. The nearest corner is 20 houses away. The measurements to the boundaries were interesting!
Other than that it was spot on.
There was clearly quite a bit of cutting and pasting from at least one other application that had nothing to do with me.
I thanked them for the permission, but pointed out it was useless. It was corrected a number of weeks later, but interestingly they wouldn't change the decision date because that would have meant they had missed their deadline.
when Facebook asked the BBC to “provide examples of the material”, the Beeb’s lawyers should have sounded alarm bells. Instead, the BBC “did so”, and Facebook then reported them to the National Crime Agency
Facebook seems to have some funny rules for what material they take down.
Rows about the removal of apparently innocuous material seem to get absurdly high levels of news coverage from time to time (quite often a "front page story" on the BBC website!).
And yet I have reported really gruesome, bloody images to FB in the past of the dead bodies of someone killed by Islamists, replete with hundreds of comments underneath saying things like this is what the **** deserved for violating her religion (and, to be fair, even more people expressing sympathy with the poor lass - though despite them being the numerical majority of the comments, it was the nastiest ones that had got hundreds of upvotes!) but I got a message back saying that the images did not violate their policies!
I was astonished by that - I had presumed they would fall under the aegis of anti-terror or anti-incitement legislation, even if basic human decency wasn't enough.
Don't disagree with any of that. My point one in this case it seems that rather than the bbc researchers showing facebook in person to where on the site this material is or names of the private groups where the material is being shared, they downloaded example images and sent them to Facebook.
Yes, sorry I was shoehorning only a semi-related point in.
I saw a documentary about how the police deal with this kind of thing - if anyone rings up about it, one of the first things they say is do not send it to us as that would constitute a criminal offence. They then explain the correct manner to communicate the information.
It was ridiculously amateurish of the BBC researchers to do what they did (I don't know the facts but it might be they did not consider the example images they sent to be explicit per se, but only inappropriate in the context of a group leering over them, or it might just be that they didn't know the law...) but if FB "asked for examples" they should have a clearer protocol for doing so.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
The roadworks on the M6 in Ozzie's constituency are a complete pain. I wonder whether they'll be finished before the ones on the M3 near me?
If they put together an integrated set of road improvements in the North West, it would be such a boon to the economy.
Road improvements across the whole country would be the single most important way to improve the Uk economy. Over 90% of travel is by road and spending could be focused on road intersections which are responsible for transport delays.
The same Hungary that wants to retain the unrestricted right for any of its citizens to come and live in the UK.
This is a very good point that is not mentioned enough.
E.g., Some parts of Eastern Europe have seen stupendous population declines because of migration to the West. Lithuania had a population of 3.7 million in 1990 when it broke from the USSR, it now has a population of 2.9 million.
Population decline at this level means that there are empty houses, empty schools, declining communities that need new people.
And yet, these countries are very unwilling to accept new migrants, who need housing, schooling, etc.
The EU is right to get tough with the Eastern states.
A concomitant to freedom of movement for your people is, if your people do move, then the empty houses can be filled by others seeking to migrate to safety in Europe.
B******l Road, Sandbanks (BPF543) The borrowers continue to await the planning decision including the adjacent site, which was expected by the end of February. The planning officer who was dealing with the decision is off on long term sick leave, and the borrowers are still waiting for the application to be reallocated to another officer.
A few years ago I applied for planning permission. The deadline was 24/12 and permission was granted that day. It must have been one hell of a party:
I received permission to build a conservatory and convert my garage into accommodation. I actually applied to extend my garage and build a porch (this was a very uncontroversial tick box exercise).
Apparently according to the description in the documents I then received my house is both semi detached and detached with a small and a large front garden on a corner plot. The nearest corner is 20 houses away. The measurements to the boundaries were interesting!
Other than that it was spot on.
There was clearly quite a bit of cutting and pasting from at least one other application that had nothing to do with me.
I thanked them for the permission, but pointed out it was useless. It was corrected a number of weeks later, but interestingly they wouldn't change the decision date because that would have meant they had missed their deadline.
Don't start me on planning officers. We did major work on our house six years ago, which included an extension and new roof. It is a modern-ish 50s house. The new plans made it look more modern.
We were turned down because the design of the new roof was not in keeping with rest of street. The street is bog-standard, a complete mongrel as far as design goes - a number of brand new bungalows, a couple of strips of pre-war small semis, two or three detached, 1970s newish builds and at one end a couple of 1920s detached houses. So which bit was it not in keeping with?
Meanwhile, a mate, who lives in a Conservation zone, fought and lost against plans to knock down a charming 1920s bungalow in his street and replace it with a brand new, ultra modern, architect designed house.
The same Hungary that wants to retain the unrestricted right for any of its citizens to come and live in the UK.
This is a very good point that is not mentioned enough.
E.g., Some parts of Eastern Europe have seen stupendous population declines because of migration to the West. Lithuania had a population of 3.7 million in 1990 when it broke from the USSR, it now has a population of 2.9 million.
Population decline at this level means that there are empty houses, empty schools, declining communities that need new people.
And yet, these countries are very unwilling to accept new migrants, who need housing, schooling, etc.
The EU is right to get tough with the Eastern states.
A concomitant to freedom of movement for your people is, if your people do move, then the empty houses can be filled by others seeking to migrate to safety in Europe.
But if you took someone from The Jungle and told them they will now have a new life in Slovakia or Bulgaria, do you think they'd stay there?
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
The roadworks on the M6 in Ozzie's constituency are a complete pain. I wonder whether they'll be finished before the ones on the M3 near me?
If they put together an integrated set of road improvements in the North West, it would be such a boon to the economy.
Road improvements across the whole country would be the single most important way to improve the Uk economy. Over 90% of travel is by road and spending could be focused on road intersections which are responsible for transport delays.
They should start with Junction 3 of the M3, and consider building the M31:
George's ticking time-bomb legacy: Insidious steal taxes. Deeply flawed gimmicks. Failed saving schemes. George Osborne was fired months ago - but on the eve of the Budget, a damning analysis exposes the poisonous inheritance he left Britain
The same Hungary that wants to retain the unrestricted right for any of its citizens to come and live in the UK.
This is a very good point that is not mentioned enough.
E.g., Some parts of Eastern Europe have seen stupendous population declines because of migration to the West. Lithuania had a population of 3.7 million in 1990 when it broke from the USSR, it now has a population of 2.9 million.
Population decline at this level means that there are empty houses, empty schools, declining communities that need new people.
And yet, these countries are very unwilling to accept new migrants, who need housing, schooling, etc.
The EU is right to get tough with the Eastern states.
A concomitant to freedom of movement for your people is, if your people do move, then the empty houses can be filled by others seeking to migrate to safety in Europe.
But if you took someone from The Jungle and told them they will now have a new life in Slovakia or Bulgaria, do you think they'd stay there?
They don't even want to stay in France.
Of course they wouldn't. Given a choice between London and Eastern Lithuania, even the Lithuanians choose London!
Myself, I think it is reasonable to admit migrants and tell them they are living in a certain area for 10 years..
In fact, isn't that why there are Syrians on the Isle of Bute?
Bute, like Eastern Lithuania, is depopulating. The Scottish Government settled them where there are empty houses. But, I don't think they can now just move to Glasgow or London, can they?
- 58% of French voters think that the FN is a danger to French democracy, that is 10% more than a survey found in 2012. Of course, that increase might be because the prospect of a President Le Pen seems a more imminent danger than it did in 2012.
- The party does especially badly amongst women, people who work at manager level or above, and people over 65..
- 29% of voters say they either have voted FN in the past and will do so again (17%), or that they might do so for the first time (12%). A further 3% say they have voted FN in the past but won't do so again.
- Notwithstanding the unpopularity of the party, some of its policies are more popular, especially amongst blue-collar workers.
My take on this is that Marine Le Pen is going to be beaten quite easily in the second round. When push comes to shove, and it's Le Pen vs (probably) Macron, I think voters from quite a wide range of existing positions will vote for the Not Le Pen candidate.
Hungary’s parliament has approved the automatic detention of all asylum seekers in container camps on the southern borders, dismissing concerns from human rights groups. The legislation, approved by a large majority of politicians, was created in response to recent terrorist attacks in Europe carried out by migrants, the hardline prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has said.
I'm really upset now, PBers think only Mike is snarky about Paul Nuttall in thread headers.
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
You know the Tories can't win in Gorton
Not with Mrs May in charge.
CMD or Gideon could have charmed the pants off Gorton's voters and won, obviously.
Absolutely.
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
The roadworks on the M6 in Ozzie's constituency are a complete pain. I wonder whether they'll be finished before the ones on the M3 near me?
If they put together an integrated set of road improvements in the North West, it would be such a boon to the economy.
Road improvements across the whole country would be the single most important way to improve the Uk economy. Over 90% of travel is by road and spending could be focused on road intersections which are responsible for transport delays.
They should start with Junction 3 of the M3, and consider building the M31:
Comments
"He [Honda spokesman] refused to comment on reports Simon left as his ideas were being ignored."
Not looking good for the orange ones.
So what if she ends up with a majority of five. Labour in 1977 had a majority of ... what was it, one??
'Large majorities make for poor government'.
Francis Pym, who was later sacked either for that or being a wet.
I refused, saying she should call the vet, and was told that ‘Mr X, (my predecessor), always did it!”
I was left wondering.
Using foreign names can be a nice shorthand for setting up a sense of time/place and/or easily distinguishing between differing backgrounds (if you have three characters called Heinrich, Pierre, and Jean-Luc, it's not hard to spot the odd one out).
Only a little way into The Jewish War, but Mark Anthony's made an appearance. Reads like a little Shakespearian nudge amidst the 'proper' Latin names (weirdly, Pompey doesn't stand out as much. Not sure why).
I shall be PB's man on the spot in Gorton.
Oz 103-7 requiring 85 to win.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/839039848195502081
I do like it here. Part of what I like is that we pick holes in each other's arguments...
I shall now lie down in a darkened room and contemplate the errors of my ways .... and especially agreeing to Mrs JackW latest trip to Paris ....
Clearly you're all dazzled by my awesome puns to notice the snark.
Nurses in stockings and suspenders .....
Nurse !!!!!!!!!!!
If you cast your mind back to Michael Crick's book 'Stranger than Fiction' about Jeffrey Archer and how it ruined his budding political career and stopped him becoming Mayor of London you can see how standards have shifted. In fact he was jailed for 4 years for a very minor perjury that is a daily occurance with Trump.
http://archive.is/Tq8lH#selection-565.0-565.16
*Apologies to all PBers who have trotted out similar guff over the years.
Are you of the opinion that the one act that has defined him and drives his deep unpopularity was based upon a truth? The dossier was not dodgy? He didn't deliberately lie to parliament?
And I do remember that London does seem to get significantly more (even once you give them 20% as a London weighting),
Is she proposing to take the Irish republic by force?
Blair was utterly convinced of the sincerity of whatever he was saying that regardless of the reality it meant that he was incapable of lying.
when Facebook asked the BBC to “provide examples of the material”, the Beeb’s lawyers should have sounded alarm bells. Instead, the BBC “did so”, and Facebook then reported them to the National Crime Agency
https://order-order.com/2017/03/07/facebook-reports-bbc-police/
It would be amusing to see a Momentum candidate, a Real Labour candidate, a True Labour candidate, a New Labour candidate, and Gorgeous George
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/video_previews/l/y/lybhvinze69adrlrlisv66ue4nkankn-xlarge.jpg
So more visitors doesn't mean more cost until you hit a volume threshold where they insist you upgrade to the next package level.
That's the same with the pricing structure for Vanilla - hit a certain number of page refreshes and the price goes up to a bigger package. That's probably what Mike is getting at. It doesn't mean that it's costing him 1p from his wallet every time we say something.
On the contrary, every time we comment or otherwise refresh the page Mike makes advertising revenue. So it's in his interests for people to say stuff.
England and Scotland didn't manage very well before 1707, hence the Union. It was mostly a business deal, and not because of any brotherly love.
A bridging loan I'm involved with:
B******l Road, Sandbanks (BPF543)
The borrowers continue to await the planning decision including the adjacent site, which was expected by the end of February. The planning officer who was dealing with the decision is off on long term sick leave, and the borrowers are still waiting for the application to be reallocated to another officer.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/839053489368154113
Before George Osborne became the MP for Tatton, the Tories were over 11,000 votes behind in second place, now his seat has an 18,000 vote Tory majority.
Given the relative proximity of Tatton to Gorton, George would have seen Gorton turn blue.
http://labourlist.org/2017/03/manchester-gorton-the-runners-and-riders-for-a-heartland-labour-seat/
Young, poorish, lots of students. It's Con take Bootle territory, and no, Osborne couldn't have done that either.
Rows about the removal of apparently innocuous material seem to get absurdly high levels of news coverage from time to time (quite often a "front page story" on the BBC website!).
And yet I have reported really gruesome, bloody images to FB in the past of the dead bodies of someone killed by Islamists, replete with hundreds of comments underneath saying things like this is what the **** deserved for violating her religion (and, to be fair, even more people expressing sympathy with the poor lass - though despite them being the numerical majority of the comments, it was the nastiest ones that had got hundreds of upvotes!) but I got a message back saying that the images did not violate their policies!
I was astonished by that - I had presumed they would fall under the aegis of anti-terror or anti-incitement legislation, even if basic human decency wasn't enough.
Tatton: http://tinyurl.com/jrh2gq4
Gorton: http://tinyurl.com/h6efeol
I received permission to build a conservatory and convert my garage into accommodation. I actually applied to extend my garage and build a porch (this was a very uncontroversial tick box exercise).
Apparently according to the description in the documents I then received my house is both semi detached and detached with a small and a large front garden on a corner plot. The nearest corner is 20 houses away. The measurements to the boundaries were interesting!
Other than that it was spot on.
There was clearly quite a bit of cutting and pasting from at least one other application that had nothing to do with me.
I thanked them for the permission, but pointed out it was useless. It was corrected a number of weeks later, but interestingly they wouldn't change the decision date because that would have meant they had missed their deadline.
What are the comparative figures for deprivation between Tower Hamlets and Dorset?
Do they justify twice the spend on funding per pupil in Tower Hamlets versus Dorset (if that is indeed the case)?
I saw a documentary about how the police deal with this kind of thing - if anyone rings up about it, one of the first things they say is do not send it to us as that would constitute a criminal offence. They then explain the correct manner to communicate the information.
It was ridiculously amateurish of the BBC researchers to do what they did (I don't know the facts but it might be they did not consider the example images they sent to be explicit per se, but only inappropriate in the context of a group leering over them, or it might just be that they didn't know the law...) but if FB "asked for examples" they should have a clearer protocol for doing so.
I'm not certain they are on a clean wicket myself.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/councillor-in-the-clear-over-attack-claim-891264
E.g., Some parts of Eastern Europe have seen stupendous population declines because of migration to the West. Lithuania had a population of 3.7 million in 1990 when it broke from the USSR, it now has a population of 2.9 million.
Population decline at this level means that there are empty houses, empty schools, declining communities that need new people.
And yet, these countries are very unwilling to accept new migrants, who need housing, schooling, etc.
The EU is right to get tough with the Eastern states.
A concomitant to freedom of movement for your people is, if your people do move, then the empty houses can be filled by others seeking to migrate to safety in Europe.
We were turned down because the design of the new roof was not in keeping with rest of street. The street is bog-standard, a complete mongrel as far as design goes - a number of brand new bungalows, a couple of strips of pre-war small semis, two or three detached, 1970s newish builds and at one end a couple of 1920s detached houses. So which bit was it not in keeping with?
Meanwhile, a mate, who lives in a Conservation zone, fought and lost against plans to knock down a charming 1920s bungalow in his street and replace it with a brand new, ultra modern, architect designed house.
Bonkers.
They don't even want to stay in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M31_motorway
George's ticking time-bomb legacy: Insidious steal taxes. Deeply flawed gimmicks. Failed saving schemes. George Osborne was fired months ago - but on the eve of the Budget, a damning analysis exposes the poisonous inheritance he left Britain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4288242/George-Osborne-s-poisonous-legacy-failed-gimmicks.html
Myself, I think it is reasonable to admit migrants and tell them they are living in a certain area for 10 years..
In fact, isn't that why there are Syrians on the Isle of Bute?
Bute, like Eastern Lithuania, is depopulating. The Scottish Government settled them where there are empty houses. But, I don't think they can now just move to Glasgow or London, can they?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/03/07/35003-20170307ARTFIG00051-les-idees-du-fn-progressent-dans-l-opinion-mais-pas-l-image-du-parti.php
Key points:
- 58% of French voters think that the FN is a danger to French democracy, that is 10% more than a survey found in 2012. Of course, that increase might be because the prospect of a President Le Pen seems a more imminent danger than it did in 2012.
- The party does especially badly amongst women, people who work at manager level or above, and people over 65..
- 29% of voters say they either have voted FN in the past and will do so again (17%), or that they might do so for the first time (12%). A further 3% say they have voted FN in the past but won't do so again.
- Notwithstanding the unpopularity of the party, some of its policies are more popular, especially amongst blue-collar workers.
My take on this is that Marine Le Pen is going to be beaten quite easily in the second round. When push comes to shove, and it's Le Pen vs (probably) Macron, I think voters from quite a wide range of existing positions will vote for the Not Le Pen candidate.
The legislation, approved by a large majority of politicians, was created in response to recent terrorist attacks in Europe carried out by migrants, the hardline prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-asylum-seekers-in-container-camps
Photo below shows the 'ship containers' where the Guardian claims they’ll be housed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/10/hungary-stoops-to-new-low-over-treatment-of-asylum-seekers#img-1
They should, but remember: Cars -> bad. Everything else -> good.
Politics beats reality, sadly.
Couldn't organise a
piss up in a brewerymother friendly after work social which doesn't involve the pub.