So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
The Democrats' position at State level seems unusually bad, even after holding the Presidency for 8 years. Probably because conservative parts of the US now vote Republican at every leve.
There's a special election in the Georgia 6th on April 18. This is usually a comfortably very safe Republican seat, with victories of 66:34 (2014) and 62:38 (2016). If the Democrats turn out and the Republicans do not, then it could be reasonably tight.
Worth noting that this is an election where there will be multiple Republican candidates and one Democrat. If no candidate gets 50%, there'll be a run off between the leading two in June. If the two leading candidates are both Republicans (which is quite possible), then it would suggest Trump is energising his party.
In other words, who knows, but it will be very interesting to see.
In the absence of a convincing answer, I will settle for an interesting question. Thank you.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
Well I'd take issue with the shit bit, but frankly I think comparing all our politics to wizard based fiction would be a good idea. Makes everything more palatable in a good and evil kind of way, no problems.
I believe the PB convention is to compare them to Star Wars
On topic, the conversation at the Palace would go something like:
PM: I've lost the confidence of Parliament, Ma'am. HMQ: So we have two weeks to find a successor. PM: There isn't anyone, Ma'am. HMQ: So there's no point faffing around, then? PM: Quite so, Ma'am. HMQ: Parliament is dissolved!
The Conservatives are returned with a large majority on a manifesto that includes HoL reform (vaguely specified) and repeal of the FTPA. The latter is swiftly enacted. Meanwhile a few die-hard constitutionalists persist in the view that the 2017 GE was invalid, and like those heroic figures who believe 1688 was a stitch-up, continue to gather on a blasted heath on the first Thursday in May in any year that ends with a '0' or a '5', to collectively bay at the moon.
That's a bit glib isn't it? If the law says two weeks, finding the law inconvenient is not an excuse to ignore it so blatantly, when the only problem would be a few weeks confusion. Sure it might not have much impact this time, but if you ignore the law for convenience once, you'll do it again, and who cares because a vote will endorse it right?
If the scenario you list worked out, yeah I'd probably have to suck and live with it, but I would be hard pressed to vote for any party that openly declared its better to ignore the law when it is inconvenient rather than change the law.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.
Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.
The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.
In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'
Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....
Step forward slayer of white van man.......
The parties that are committed to Brexit have about 55% support, and those which are opposed have about 20% support, so Brexit is going to happen.
The question is how ressilient will that support be when things start going wrong and there are some respected figures to remind us that we were duped?
As for two parties supporting with 55% this crosses party boundaries. From memory MP's were about 450 Remain 200 Leave and as with Iraq when things get sticky I expect them remind us which way they voted
I think you are grasping at straws. The most malign effects of Brexit will not bite until after it has happened. You grossly underestimate inertia in both politics and economics.
And if EU goes for the "punishment" Brexit option, people will blame the EU.
On topic, the conversation at the Palace would go something like:
PM: I've lost the confidence of Parliament, Ma'am. HMQ: So we have two weeks to find a successor. PM: There isn't anyone, Ma'am. HMQ: So there's no point faffing around, then? PM: Quite so, Ma'am. HMQ: Parliament is dissolved!
The Conservatives are returned with a large majority on a manifesto that includes HoL reform (vaguely specified) and repeal of the FTPA. The latter is swiftly enacted. Meanwhile a few die-hard constitutionalists persist in the view that the 2017 GE was invalid, and like those heroic figures who believe 1688 was a stitch-up, continue to gather on a blasted heath on the first Thursday in May in any year that ends with a '0' or a '5', to collectively bay at the moon.
No, what would happen is that there'd be an immediate appeal to the High Court, which would rule that the dissolution was illegal.
Politics abhors a vacuum and those two weeks would be a vacuum. Something would get sucked in.
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
1.4m people more voted for UKIP than the Lib Dems at the last GE.. where is the outrage and constant pointing out of that from these miserable whiners whose side keep losing the big votes?
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
SCOTUS is for all Americans on a completely equal basis regardless of which state they live in, its justices sit for life and are essentially irremovable. If it represents and imposes minority views for a sustained period of time that is not healthy for the US's democracy.
"It’s quite possible that if a majority government (...) No Confidenced itself, the Queen would still go through the motions of inviting senior politicians to form their own government."
The monarch would call an election and ask May to stay on as caretaker.
"Obviously, neither May nor any other Conservative would accept, as that would prevent their objective of forcing an election."
Not if they are caretaker only. To prevent an election, there'd have to be a vote of confidence within two weeks.
And if May and many of the Tories wanted a general election, they could probably get a two-thirds majority for one anyway, so why NC themselves?
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George e Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
What was the average life expectancy in the US when SOTUS justices were given lifetime appointments? The rules are the rules, but presidents have term limits and can be voted out. Neither applies to SCOTUS judges.
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
The disturbing thing for Labour is that it isn't frothing right wing homophobes who have driven Owen Jones to give up social media. It's his own side. Absolutely crazy.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
1.4m people more voted for UKIP than the Lib Dems at the last GE.. where is the outrage and constant pointing out of that from these miserable whiners whose side keep losing the big votes?
You'll find plenty of posts from me pointing out the iniquity of denying millions of UKIP voters a voice in the Commons.
I think that's a bit simplistic. If large firms close down factories and relocate them inside the EU, I think those affected will probably not choose to blame "Europolitics", they'll blame British politicians - either for not doing enough to keep them, or for lying to them.
Fortunately, so long as we are relatively sensible, this is unlikely to be a major issue.
A rubbish tax raising government doesn't look so sensible after Wednesday's disaster. Hammond should at least have shown the intention to lower corporation tax to 15% so that those who are self employed move to incorporate.
Overall I'm extremely disappointed in the government. Pissing off the very people the country will need to attract seems like a poor idea. Doing it for such a paltry sum of money is bad politics and bad government.
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
And another long odds bet. The Greens in Holland (who are very pro-Europe, keen on unlimited immigration and happy to share in EU debt) have surged in the latest poll to 20 seats, just 4 behind the leading PVV. There are lots more leftish voters in Netherlands who would love to stop Wilders (PvDA, SP) and I could imagine rallying behind the Greens. Their odds on Betfair at 60. SIXTY.
Yes, the poll could be an outlier. But outliers trigger movements.
I've put £3 on. Unlikely, sure, but 59-1 unlikely? Nah.
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
The disturbing thing for Labour is that it isn't frothing right wing homophobes who have driven Owen Jones to give up social media. It's his own side. Absolutely crazy.
Indeed:
Philip CollinsVerified account @PCollinsTimes 54m54 minutes ago
Owen Jones has had a harsh lesson in the viability of his own politics and then another in the utterly vicious nature of the far left.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
1.4m people more voted for UKIP than the Lib Dems at the last GE.. where is the outrage and constant pointing out of that from these miserable whiners whose side keep losing the big votes?
You'll find plenty of posts from me pointing out the iniquity of denying millions of UKIP voters a voice in the Commons.
Fair play to you then, but there does seem to be, or maybe its just my imagination, a certain "Them's the rules" attitude which transforms into "its not fair" from people, depending on whether its their side or not. I guess we all do it to an extent, but we have to take the rough w the smooth
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
On topic, the conversation at the Palace would go something like:
PM: I've lost the confidence of Parliament, Ma'am. HMQ: So we have two weeks to find a successor. PM: There isn't anyone, Ma'am. HMQ: So there's no point faffing around, then? PM: Quite so, Ma'am. HMQ: Parliament is dissolved!
The Conservatives are returned with a large majority on a manifesto that includes HoL reform (vaguely specified) and repeal of the FTPA. The latter is swiftly enacted. Meanwhile a few die-hard constitutionalists persist in the view that the 2017 GE was invalid, and like those heroic figures who believe 1688 was a stitch-up, continue to gather on a blasted heath on the first Thursday in May in any year that ends with a '0' or a '5', to collectively bay at the moon.
No, what would happen is that there'd be an immediate appeal to the High Court, which would rule that the dissolution was illegal.
Politics abhors a vacuum and those two weeks would be a vacuum. Something would get sucked in.
The monarch retains the right to prorogue (confirmed in s6(1) of the FPTA) and she acts on advice, so the PM could advise her to prorogue at the start of the two weeks. That would ride roughshod over the spirit of the FTPA but it would be lawful.
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
The disturbing thing for Labour is that it isn't frothing right wing homophobes who have driven Owen Jones to give up social media. It's his own side. Absolutely crazy.
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
That's arguably true (although from a small sample base). However, GOP aside, the US as a whole is much better served by Trump rather than Clinton appointing new members of the Supremes.
Why? Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin. How is America best-served by having the person who won less votes making Supreme Court nominations?
And if EU goes for the "punishment" Brexit option, people will blame the EU.
Whatever the EU does, it will be interpreted malevolently. Anything that goes wrong will be blamed on those malevolent interpretations. You may recall I coined the phrase "fail and blame" (or "failing and blaming") for this process
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
The aim is to extend it west to Telford. However, the company is digging its heels in as an extension to the M54 would bankrupt them.
Cannock, Burntwood, Brownhills, Lichfield, Sutton Coldfield and Tamworth would all benefit if the road were cheaper or toll-free. None of them on their own are gigantic but together they must add up to around 400,000 people. There is also a lot of light industry in this area and multiple distribution points including Amazon's main hub that would use it. However, because of the toll they use the A5 instead which is always at a crawl on the single carriageway section from Penkridge to Lichfield via Cannock as a result. A few years ago they actually had to dual the A5 from Lichfield to Tamworth at vast expense because of the weight of traffic along the old road and past Sir Robert Peel hospital. I thought at the time (and this is before I lived here) it would have been cheaper and more effective to nationalise the M6 Toll.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
Well I'd take issue with the shit bit, but frankly I think comparing all our politics to wizard based fiction would be a good idea. Makes everything more palatable in a good and evil kind of way, no problems.
I believe the PB convention is to compare them to Star Wars
Sunil: Remember back to your early teachings. "All who gain power are afraid to lose it." Even the REMAINERS.
TSE: The REMAINERS use their power for good.
Sunil: Good is a point of view, Anakin, er, I mean TSE. The LEAVERS and the REMAINERS are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.
TSE: The LEAVERS rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Sunil: And the REMAINERS don't?
TSE: The REMAINERS are selfless... they only care about others.
Sunil: [looking a little frustrated] Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Smithson "the Wise"?
TSE: No.
Sunil: I thought not. It's not a story the LibDems would tell you. It's a Blogging legend. Darth Smithson was a Dark Lord of the Sith who lived many years ago. He was so powerful and so wise that he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create... AV threads. He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying from boredom on Thursday Nights.
TSE: He could do that? He could actually save people from boring themselves to death?
Sunil: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many policy platforms some consider to be unelectable.
TSE: What happened to him?
Sunil: He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, and then one night, his apprentice wiped his servers' hard drives while he slept. It's ironic that he could save others from obscurity, but not himself.
The Prime Minister draws their powers from the Crown, so there is no requirement for them to be in Parliament, is there? It is all just convention.
Not quite. The Prime Minister (which is actually a comparatively new title, first used officially when Chequers was gifted to the nation as 'The Country Residence of the Prime Minister') is appointed by the Crown to oversee its interests in Parliament - specifically the handling of financial matters which have generally (with rare exceptions, see Charles I) been considered a Parliamentary matter since the reign of Edward I.
So therefore, the First Lord of the Treasury does have to be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. That is not to say it has to be the Commons, but on the three occasions a peer was considered for the premiership in the twentieth century one was rejected simply for being a peer (Curzon 1923 - admittedly it didn't help that he was a grade-1 thug whom nobody liked either) one officially for being a peer (Halifax 1940 - probably realised he couldn't command public support ahead of Churchill) and one was appointed by a stitch-up on the understanding he would disclaim his peerage and return to the Commons (Home 1963). The only time there could be an exception is if there were no Parliament - I suppose in theory an election camapaign could cover that but it would look bad.
The Prime Minister draws their powers from the Crown, so there is no requirement for them to be in Parliament, is there? It is all just convention.
Correct. Unless someone knows differently, I think the last time a member of the British government wasn't also a member of parliament was in 1989-92, when Allan Rodger was Solicitor General for Scotland.
We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.
Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.
Neville Chamberlain? If it hadn't been for Hitler his technocratic government would probably have been well regarded in retrospect. I know that sounds a bit silly.
Neville Chamberlain was a member of a leading political dynasty and had been a senior politician and Cabinet Minister since 1922. Although he entered government in 1917 as a businessman with a clearly defined role, he was undoubtedly a politician. Anyone who doubts that should remember that from 1929 to 1931 he was Conservative Party Chairman, the most nakedly partisan of all political roles. He was also famous for his loathing of the Labour Party.
He entered Parliament in 1918 as MP for Birmingham Ladywood.
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
Not entirely accurate. Yes the middling-step of the electors is because they weren't too keen on direct democracy but there was also an additional bonus to the number of electors the small states got as a deliberate decision to boost the say of small states.
If they wanted to just base it on population alone the solution would have been for electors to be equal to the number of representatives [based on population size] per state. Instead the number of electors was set at number of representatives [based on population] PLUS number of Senators [fixed at 2].
Thus there are seven states that only have one representative because the population of the state is so low - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. However they all have 3 electoral college votes instead, effectively almost tripling their representation. While California has 53 representatives, its two senators bumps its electoral college votes just "just" 55 - a less than 4% increase in electors rather than tripling the total.
By population the seven states make up about 1.5% of the population - but they make up over 3.6% of the electoral college.
All this is by design so that states like California (or in their days I believe Virginia) could not dominate the smaller states.
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
Wow! Owen Jones - walking away from social media as he's had enough:
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
The disturbing thing for Labour is that it isn't frothing right wing homophobes who have driven Owen Jones to give up social media. It's his own side. Absolutely crazy.
Socialist Media
Owen Jones is just another extreme right-wing Tory. Obviously. Once we have purged the left of all those who are not True To The One Faith, we will have purity. Purity.... we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids....
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
Well I'd take issue with the shit bit, but frankly I think comparing all our politics to wizard based fiction would be a good idea. Makes everything more palatable in a good and evil kind of way, no problems.
I believe the PB convention is to compare them to Star Wars
Perhaps we should all read all of Mr Dancer's books and use that as the baseline for comparison ...
1.4m people more voted for UKIP than the Lib Dems at the last GE.. where is the outrage and constant pointing out of that...
I thought it was iniquitous and I believe I made remarks to that effect at the time.
Maybe I only remember the "Them's the rules" comments. Insults leave a bigger mark than agreement!
I suspect many of them would be from Tories or Labour folk who are quite satisfied with First Past the Post and were in the two-thirds of voters who voted to keep it at the last referendum. Like me
One of the most iconic and genre defining pieces of literature of the 20th century is not shit.
Bit stodgy, but indeed so. It may be the tweeter is one of those who feels fantasy=shit by definition.
Unfortunately, much SFF fiction is shit, but that's true of any genre. And some critics despise genre fiction on principle. When LOTR was published, it was generally rubbished by intellectuals (other than Iris Murdoch, CS Lewis, and WH Auden who loved it). It's reputation has grown over 60 years.
' Corbyn might accept but if he did, his government would fail to receive the Commons’ confidence. ' Surely a government has to be formed - ie actually have come into existence - before it can be presented to the House of Commons for an Affirmative Confidence vote! Corbyn could actually form a Government - a process which would take a few days - and by the time he has been defeated on the Confidence vote, the 14 day period will have pretty well expired and a Dissolution would automatically follow.
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
Not entirely accurate. Yes the middling-step of the electors is because they weren't too keen on direct democracy but there was also an additional bonus to the number of electors the small states got as a deliberate decision to boost the say of small states.
If they wanted to just base it on population alone the solution would have been for electors to be equal to the number of representatives [based on population size] per state. Instead the number of electors was set at number of representatives [based on population] PLUS number of Senators [fixed at 2].
Thus there are seven states that only have one representative because the population of the state is so low - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. However they all have 3 electoral college votes instead, effectively almost tripling their representation. While California has 53 representatives, its two senators bumps its electoral college votes just "just" 55 - a less than 4% increase in electors rather than tripling the total.
By population the seven states make up about 1.5% of the population - but they make up over 3.6% of the electoral college.
All this is by design so that states like California (or in their days I believe Virginia) could not dominate the smaller states.
Not that it worked: Virginia and Massachusetts supplied the first six presidents.
I hope Casino_Royale doesn't mind me re-quoting something he posted on here a few days ago:
"Casino_Royale said:
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind."
I hope Casino_Royale doesn't mind me re-quoting something he posted on here a few days ago:
"Casino_Royale said:
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind."
Presumably for the same reason the presidency is assigned that way - so the more populous states cannot completely dominate things. I'd be concerned at who Trump nominates because of who he is rather than because of the means of his election, which is exactly the way they always wanted it to be.
The presidency is assigned as it is because the Founding Fathers weren't too trustful of democracy. If they had been, they'd have used popular vote as the measure, which would have cut states as such out of the equation altogether (although of course it wouldn't have cut section, regional or state interests out if those interests were sufficiently well perceived by the citizens of those states).
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
Not entirely accurate. Yes the middling-step of the electors is because they weren't too keen on direct democracy but there was also an additional bonus to the number of electors the small states got as a deliberate decision to boost the say of small states.
If they wanted to just base it on population alone the solution would have been for electors to be equal to the number of representatives [based on population size] per state. Instead the number of electors was set at number of representatives [based on population] PLUS number of Senators [fixed at 2].
Thus there are seven states that only have one representative because the population of the state is so low - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. However they all have 3 electoral college votes instead, effectively almost tripling their representation. While California has 53 representatives, its two senators bumps its electoral college votes just "just" 55 - a less than 4% increase in electors rather than tripling the total.
By population the seven states make up about 1.5% of the population - but they make up over 3.6% of the electoral college.
All this is by design so that states like California (or in their days I believe Virginia) could not dominate the smaller states.
Not that it worked: Virginia and Massachusetts supplied the first six presidents.
True. But it worked as intended in 2000 for Bush v Gore.
Take away the 2 senate electors from every state and Bush would have got 211 votes to Gore getting 226. It was essentially Bush getting the small states bonus that made him win.
Owen Jones is just another extreme right-wing Tory. Obviously. Once we have purged the left of all those who are not True To The One Faith, we will have purity. Purity.... we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids....
Afternoon. A good hypothetical thread, the clear conclusion to be drawn is that the FTPA makes the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 look like a carefully considered and well thought through piece of legislation.
In practice, the idea of a staged no-confidence vote is going to leave a big constitutional mess from which the government could take a kicking at the subsequent election.
I'd like to see Mrs May lay the motion of dissolution before the house, if only that it would completely split Labour if they're asked to vote against (or abstain, same difference here). If that doesn't pass then they should go down the legislative route and dare the Lords to vote against it.
One of the most iconic and genre defining pieces of literature of the 20th century is not shit.
Bit stodgy, but indeed so. It may be the tweeter is one of those who feels fantasy=shit by definition.
Unfortunately, much SFF fiction is shit, but that's true of any genre. And some critics despise genre fiction on principle. When LOTR was published, it was generally rubbished by intellectuals (other than Iris Murdoch, CS Lewis, and WH Auden who loved it). It's reputation has grown over 60 years.
Time is presumably the testing of whether something is truly worthy or not. Forgotten masterpieces aside, we remember the good songs, books, movies and games, even if they were not critically acclaimed at the time, even if they were not good in a conventional way. Star Wars has a simplistic plot and pretty ropey acting, but it captured people's attentions, and while popular does not automatically equal good, such enduring popularity surely makes it far better than most forgettable Oscar winners.
The hilariously bad also endures I suppose.
I do wonder which PB headers will fall into the realm of forgotten masterpiece, future classic and hilariously bad.
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
The aim is to extend it west to Telford. However, the company is digging its heels in as an extension to the M54 would bankrupt them.
Cannock, Burntwood, Brownhills, Lichfield, Sutton Coldfield and Tamworth would all benefit if the road were cheaper or toll-free. None of them on their own are gigantic but together they must add up to around 400,000 people. There is also a lot of light industry in this area and multiple distribution points including Amazon's main hub that would use it. However, because of the toll they use the A5 instead which is always at a crawl on the single carriageway section from Penkridge to Lichfield via Cannock as a result. A few years ago they actually had to dual the A5 from Lichfield to Tamworth at vast expense because of the weight of traffic along the old road and past Sir Robert Peel hospital. I thought at the time (and this is before I lived here) it would have been cheaper and more effective to nationalise the M6 Toll.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
Yes, the link to the M54 (but not to Telford, I understand) has been mooted for years but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Since you approve of nationalising the M6 Toll and making it free I presume you support Labour's Sion Simon for Metro Mayor and not the Tory's Andy Street, who backs more investment in public transport, cycling and walking?
We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.
Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.
Neville Chamberlain? If it hadn't been for Hitler his technocratic government would probably have been well regarded in retrospect. I know that sounds a bit silly.
Neville Chamberlain was a member of a leading political dynasty and had been a senior politician and Cabinet Minister since 1922. Although he entered government in 1917 as a businessman with a clearly defined role, he was undoubtedly a politician. Anyone who doubts that should remember that from 1929 to 1931 he was Conservative Party Chairman, the most nakedly partisan of all political roles. He was also famous for his loathing of the Labour Party.
He entered Parliament in 1918 as MP for Birmingham Ladywood.
Yes, but he had a government role before that (not that it lasted long as Lloyd George thought his head was the wrong shape).
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
The aim is to extend it west to Telford. However, the company is digging its heels in as an extension to the M54 would bankrupt them.
Cannock, Burntwood, Brownhills, Lichfield, Sutton Coldfield and Tamworth would all benefit if the road were cheaper or toll-free. None of them on their own are gigantic but together they must add up to around 400,000 people. There is also a lot of light industry in this area and multiple distribution points including Amazon's main hub that would use it. However, because of the toll they use the A5 instead which is always at a crawl on the single carriageway section from Penkridge to Lichfield via Cannock as a result. A few years ago they actually had to dual the A5 from Lichfield to Tamworth at vast expense because of the weight of traffic along the old road and past Sir Robert Peel hospital. I thought at the time (and this is before I lived here) it would have been cheaper and more effective to nationalise the M6 Toll.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
Yes, the link to the M54 (but not to Telford, I understand) has been mooted for years but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Since you approve of nationalising the M6 Toll and making it free I presume you support Labour's Sion Simon for Metro Mayor and not the Tory's Andy Street, who backs more investment in public transport, cycling and walking?
I wouldn't support Simon for mayor of Bilston if the only other candidate was Michael Fabricant. And that is saying quite something.
Given that I also cycle to work and walk to do my shopping, I am all in favour of better cycle routes (I would certainly be happier with a proper cycle route along the A34).
But as the M6 toll is a national matter and the others are local, frankly I see no conflict in wanting both to happen.
Not that it worked: Virginia and Massachusetts supplied the first six presidents.
True. But it worked as intended in 2000 for Bush v Gore.
Take away the 2 senate electors from every state and Bush would have got 211 votes to Gore getting 226. It was essentially Bush getting the small states bonus that made him win.
1876 looks to be an earlier example of the small state bonus swinging the election [although that election has other complications].
Tilden got a majority, not just plurality, of the popular vote and 184 electoral votes. Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes winning the election by one elector.
Had it not been for the small state bonus, Hayes would have won 143 electors and Tilden would have won 150 electors. Tilden would have got a clear majority of electors as well as a majority in the popular vote with no need to reach the Compromise of 1877 to resolve the election.
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
So, Obama was not a weak-willed liberal who let anyone come to America and stay. Who knew?
I love the way that Piers tries to pin Republican refusals to contemplate any gun controls on the former president. And he is leading a PLOT to bring Trump down.
You couldn't make it up.
Or you could.
Some fools will always believe you.
It's quite touching, in a way how those stats seem to come as a surprise to Plato. Most politically engaged US liberals have been well aware of them - and indeed plenty have critiqued him on that basis. The "St Obama" thing seems to be how the right thinks the left views him, which is fairly ridiculous, as many on the left see him as a moderate conservative.
The biggest single failure of the Democrats under Obama, IMO, was allowing the electoral machine he started to build in 2008 to wither on the vine. You can hardly blame the president for concentrating on Washington politics, but the party did the same.
George W Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Snr etc all left office with their parties out of power in Congress and most state legislatures, it was not just Obama and I doubt Trump will be much different, a Hillary win would have been far better for the GOP beyond the Oval Office
The Democrats' position at State level seems unusually bad, even after holding the Presidency for 8 years. Probably because conservative parts of the US now vote Republican at every leve.
After 4 years of Trump that will change, a Trump victory was the best possible result for the Democrats outside the White House and the worst for the GOP
If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls
The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.
It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.
We will see, though both the FN and EM should be boosted by a Le Pen v Macron runoff, however the most likely outcome is LR win most seats in the legislature which means Macron would have to face the conservative opposition in charge of the Assemblee Nationale from the beginning of his presidency
Worth remembering, though, that Macron is the most popular "second choice" even among FN voters, which tells you that voters aren't always as ideological as we tend to think. (Hence how many flipped from LibDems to UKIP last time around.)
Yes but Macron will not be on the ballot in the legislative elections only En Marche
The result would have been identical to within one or two electors with Clinton vs Trump if states did not have the "extra" two, and were done entirely on population. Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania gave a whole bunch of efficient votes... Whereas the wide wide wide margin in California was the problem and vastly outweighed the population difference in the GOP's least efficient 55 collegiate votes - this would not have changed had California and Wyoming had the 'correct' number of electors.
Being a foreign cricketer in Pakistan seems a right giggle
"Upon landing in Lahore, the team was greeted by private security and escorted into one of many bombproof buses, before being driven through clear roads to the Pearl Continental hotel. There, the overseas players were put on the same floor, with around four armed guards to each room.
On the morning of the match, the squads travelling to the ground were put onto buses just outside the hotel reception. After waiting for close to 10 minutes, they pulled away in sync, with armed guards running alongside, turning into the road outside to join a formation of five or six vehicles with mounted machine guns - in front and behind the bus - as well as cars driving alongside the bus, within touching distance, boxing it in. The other side of the road was completely closed, with the same number of army vehicles set-up."
If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls
The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.
It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.
We will see, though both the FN and EM should be boosted by a Le Pen v Macron runoff, however the most likely outcome is LR win most seats in the legislature which means Macron would have to face the conservative opposition in charge of the Assemblee Nationale from the beginning of his presidency
Worth remembering, though, that Macron is the most popular "second choice" even among FN voters, which tells you that voters aren't always as ideological as we tend to think. (Hence how many flipped from LibDems to UKIP last time around.)
Yes but Macron will not be on the ballot in the legislative elections only En Marche
If Macron wins it will cause a realignment of the parties. Parties as simply a presidential vehicle are nothing new in French politics.
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
Scotland gave Tories a majority in 1992........
Glenda Jackson Gains Oliver Letwins seat in Hampstead and Highgate.
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls
The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.
It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.
We will see, though both the FN and EM should be boosted by a Le Pen v Macron runoff, however the most likely outcome is LR win most seats in the legislature which means Macron would have to face the conservative opposition in charge of the Assemblee Nationale from the beginning of his presidency
Worth remembering, though, that Macron is the most popular "second choice" even among FN voters, which tells you that voters aren't always as ideological as we tend to think. (Hence how many flipped from LibDems to UKIP last time around.)
Not as consistently ideological (or ideologically consistent) at any rate.
Philip Hammond's demonisation could be the chink of light the Remainers have been waiting for. As I see it Article 50 is reversable until it isn't. The EU will find a way..... The interventions of Major Hesseltine and Blair have had an effect. People seem less willing to go gently into that goodnight.
Article 50 will be signed but every dot and comma will be scrapped over and more important will be news. If urbane Philip Hammond can get the treatment imagine the reaction to the sleasy trio of Johnson Davis and Fox when it starts to go pear-shaped.
The experts no longer shackled by having to start every sentence 'we accept the democratic will etc' will start saying what they've been gagging to say since the vote.
In one day we've had Stephen Hawkins Richard Dawkins and a documentary with Laura Kuinsberg giving the same message.'We're going to land in a pile of shit'
Back to the chink of light..... Experts and the media can make the natives restless but to get this thing reversed needs a political leader with credibility.....
Owen Jones is just another extreme right-wing Tory. Obviously. Once we have purged the left of all those who are not True To The One Faith, we will have purity. Purity.... we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids....
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
Scotland gave Tories a majority in 1992........
Glenda Jackson Gains Oliver Letwins seat in Hampstead and Highgate.
One of the most iconic and genre defining pieces of literature of the 20th century is not shit.
Bit stodgy, but indeed so. It may be the tweeter is one of those who feels fantasy=shit by definition.
Unfortunately, much SFF fiction is shit, but that's true of any genre. And some critics despise genre fiction on principle. When LOTR was published, it was generally rubbished by intellectuals (other than Iris Murdoch, CS Lewis, and WH Auden who loved it). It's reputation has grown over 60 years.
Being a foreign cricketer in Pakistan seems a right giggle
"Upon landing in Lahore, the team was greeted by private security and escorted into one of many bombproof buses, before being driven through clear roads to the Pearl Continental hotel. There, the overseas players were put on the same floor, with around four armed guards to each room.
On the morning of the match, the squads travelling to the ground were put onto buses just outside the hotel reception. After waiting for close to 10 minutes, they pulled away in sync, with armed guards running alongside, turning into the road outside to join a formation of five or six vehicles with mounted machine guns - in front and behind the bus - as well as cars driving alongside the bus, within touching distance, boxing it in. The other side of the road was completely closed, with the same number of army vehicles set-up."
Not surprising that a number of western players have declined to play the final of the T20.
A few months ago I watched a piece on a failed NBA prospect who is now a journey man. Apparently there is big money in playing in Iraq (if you ever see it, its cash in hand from some very interesting individuals)
I make that a gas attack in Hamburg, machete and axe rampages in Dusseldorf, and now this - all in the space of 48 hours. Germany doesn't seem to be in a very good place right now.
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
The aim is to extend it west to Telford. However, the company is digging its heels in as an extension to the M54 would bankrupt them.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
Yes, the link to the M54 (but not to Telford, I understand) has been mooted for years but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Since you approve of nationalising the M6 Toll and making it free I presume you support Labour's Sion Simon for Metro Mayor and not the Tory's Andy Street, who backs more investment in public transport, cycling and walking?
I wouldn't support Simon for mayor of Bilston if the only other candidate was Michael Fabricant. And that is saying quite something.
Given that I also cycle to work and walk to do my shopping, I am all in favour of better cycle routes (I would certainly be happier with a proper cycle route along the A34).
But as the M6 toll is a national matter and the others are local, frankly I see no conflict in wanting both to happen.
Finally, I don't have a vote.
Very good!
The problem with removing tolls from the M6 Toll is that it will simply encourage a lot more discretionary car trips that are currently suppressed by the pricing and congestion. That in turn will cause more congestion, pollution, road casualties and obesity in the local area.
We've known since the SACTRA report that adding more Road capacity simply leads to more traffic demand, yet successive generations of decision makers must learn that unwelcome fact anew.
I make that a gas attack in Hamburg, machete and axe rampages in Dusseldorf, and now this - all in the space of 48 hours. Germany doesn't seem to be in a very good place right now.
Wasn't some of that due to those genuinely with psychiatric issues? We've had madmen wielding machetes and even samurai swords etc in the past and America has a permanent issue with gun wielders.
I do wonder how much prior attacks influence and encourage further attacks by those with a screw or two loose.
Being a foreign cricketer in Pakistan seems a right giggle
"Upon landing in Lahore, the team was greeted by private security and escorted into one of many bombproof buses, before being driven through clear roads to the Pearl Continental hotel. There, the overseas players were put on the same floor, with around four armed guards to each room.
On the morning of the match, the squads travelling to the ground were put onto buses just outside the hotel reception. After waiting for close to 10 minutes, they pulled away in sync, with armed guards running alongside, turning into the road outside to join a formation of five or six vehicles with mounted machine guns - in front and behind the bus - as well as cars driving alongside the bus, within touching distance, boxing it in. The other side of the road was completely closed, with the same number of army vehicles set-up."
That doesn't sound like much fun, but that security is needed after international cricketers were specifically targeted. Hopefully the security situation in Pakistan will sort itself out over time, even if I means that I get to watch less live cricket in the future!
Apropos the upthread discussion of the M6 Toll, neé BNRR. I gave evidence at the public inquiry on behalf of objectors to the scheme and, in the face of hostile questioning from the DfT's QC, said it would have no benefit in relieving congestion on the M6.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
The problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere different to the actual M6. As ydoethur says, the only place it serves is Lichfield and it doesn't sound like it gets used.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
The aim is to extend it west to Telford. However, the company is digging its heels in as an extension to the M54 would bankrupt them.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
Yes, the link to the M54 (but not to Telford, I understand) has been mooted for years but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Since you approve of nationalising the M6 Toll and making it free I presume you support Labour's Sion Simon for Metro Mayor and not the Tory's Andy Street, who backs more investment in public transport, cycling and walking?
I wouldn't support Simon for mayor of Bilston if the only other candidate was Michael Fabricant. And that is saying quite something.
Given that I also cycle to work and walk to do my shopping, I am all in favour of better cycle routes (I would certainly be happier with a proper cycle route along the A34).
But as the M6 toll is a national matter and the others are local, frankly I see no conflict in wanting both to happen.
Finally, I don't have a vote.
Very good!
The problem with removing tolls from the M6 Toll is that it will simply encourage a lot more discretionary car trips that are currently suppressed by the pricing and congestion. That in turn will cause more congestion, pollution, road casualties and obesity in the local area.
We've known since the SACTRA report that adding more Road capacity simply leads to more traffic demand, yet successive generations of decision makers must learn that unwelcome fact anew.
I don't have a vote either.
More traffic demand is a good thing, since journeys are generally productive it means more productivity. Especially if they're less trapped in congestion.
Pollution is best dealt with by improving the efficiency and output of vehicles, not by an artificial constraint on movement.
The far left maniacs at Brighton Uni had it in for Tesco back in 2010/11.. is it something to do with Jewish people? I was past listening to them by that stage
The far left maniacs at Brighton Uni had it in for Tesco back in 2010/11.. is it something to do with Jewish people? I was past listening to them by that stage
Cardiff Met will probably add Tesco to their banned word list.
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
Well, he certainly is often guilty of romanticising elements, you have me there.
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
Well, he certainly is often guilty of romanticising elements, you have me there.
It seems to be a common affliction of people who were born far away from 'home'.
If Macron does win the Presidency he could potentially face an even more hostile Assembly than Le Pen with FN and LR voters turning out in force and his En Marche party is barely even represented in the legislature at present and the PS is also in a weak position in the polls
The FN only has one out of 577 seats in the French parliament currently, and (realistically) won't end up with more than half a dozen because of the French two round system.
It will be interesting to see how En Marche does in the subsequent parliamentary elections. I would guess that they'll also end up with only a relatively small number of directly elected parliamentarians, but the two round system benefits them. I'd guess they'll end up with 50 or so.
We will see, though both the FN and EM should be boosted by a Le Pen v Macron runoff, however the most likely outcome is LR win most seats in the legislature which means Macron would have to face the conservative opposition in charge of the Assemblee Nationale from the beginning of his presidency
Worth remembering, though, that Macron is the most popular "second choice" even among FN voters, which tells you that voters aren't always as ideological as we tend to think. (Hence how many flipped from LibDems to UKIP last time around.)
Yes but Macron will not be on the ballot in the legislative elections only En Marche
If Macron wins it will cause a realignment of the parties. Parties as simply a presidential vehicle are nothing new in French politics.
Normally what happens is the main centre right party is replaced by a new centre right party of the President, I can't see Macron's centrist party replacing the centre left PS especially as he is far too Blairite for most of their membership, just look at how they picked the leftwing Hamon as their candidate this year
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
Says the Franco-Argentine pretending to be a Celt in Cambridge.
Comments
If the scenario you list worked out, yeah I'd probably have to suck and live with it, but I would be hard pressed to vote for any party that openly declared its better to ignore the law when it is inconvenient rather than change the law.
But complaining that Hillary won more votes is like complaining that your side lost even though it had more possession / corners / territory / shots on goal. Blame the manager and the team for not making more of those advantages.
Politics abhors a vacuum and those two weeks would be a vacuum. Something would get sucked in.
The Inspector disagreed, believing the Government's ridiculous 'cascade' traffic theory.
I was right, they were wrong. We live with the consequences.
"I always wanted a left that was inclusive, welcoming, warm, that tried to convince the great mass of people who don't take a daily interest in politics that a better world was possible. If it is overtaken by a loud minority who are, increasingly, bound by utter hatred towards anyone deemed to deviate from their sanctity of their cause, then there is no future. None."
https://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/posts/1283629501730559
The monarch would call an election and ask May to stay on as caretaker.
"Obviously, neither May nor any other Conservative would accept, as that would prevent their objective of forcing an election."
Not if they are caretaker only. To prevent an election, there'd have to be a vote of confidence within two weeks.
And if May and many of the Tories wanted a general election, they could probably get a two-thirds majority for one anyway, so why NC themselves?
1707 – Queen Anne withheld royal assent from the Scottish Militia Bill, the last time a British monarch vetoed legislation.
Overall I'm extremely disappointed in the government. Pissing off the very people the country will need to attract seems like a poor idea. Doing it for such a paltry sum of money is bad politics and bad government.
What we really need is for it to be extended north to Manchester. But I guess the peak district gets in the way.
Philip CollinsVerified account @PCollinsTimes 54m54 minutes ago
Owen Jones has had a harsh lesson in the viability of his own politics and then another in the utterly vicious nature of the far left.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/840501489898524673
Cannock, Burntwood, Brownhills, Lichfield, Sutton Coldfield and Tamworth would all benefit if the road were cheaper or toll-free. None of them on their own are gigantic but together they must add up to around 400,000 people. There is also a lot of light industry in this area and multiple distribution points including Amazon's main hub that would use it. However, because of the toll they use the A5 instead which is always at a crawl on the single carriageway section from Penkridge to Lichfield via Cannock as a result. A few years ago they actually had to dual the A5 from Lichfield to Tamworth at vast expense because of the weight of traffic along the old road and past Sir Robert Peel hospital. I thought at the time (and this is before I lived here) it would have been cheaper and more effective to nationalise the M6 Toll.
It could be an engine for many good things round here, but as Bromptonaut notes the theories they used were rubbish and we do indeed live with the consequences.
TSE: The REMAINERS use their power for good.
Sunil: Good is a point of view, Anakin, er, I mean TSE. The LEAVERS and the REMAINERS are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.
TSE: The LEAVERS rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Sunil: And the REMAINERS don't?
TSE: The REMAINERS are selfless... they only care about others.
Sunil: [looking a little frustrated] Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Smithson "the Wise"?
TSE: No.
Sunil: I thought not. It's not a story the LibDems would tell you. It's a Blogging legend. Darth Smithson was a Dark Lord of the Sith who lived many years ago. He was so powerful and so wise that he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create... AV threads. He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying from boredom on Thursday Nights.
TSE: He could do that? He could actually save people from boring themselves to death?
Sunil: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many policy platforms some consider to be unelectable.
TSE: What happened to him?
Sunil: He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, and then one night, his apprentice wiped his servers' hard drives while he slept. It's ironic that he could save others from obscurity, but not himself.
TSE: Is it possible to learn this power?
Sunil: Not from a LibDem...
So therefore, the First Lord of the Treasury does have to be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. That is not to say it has to be the Commons, but on the three occasions a peer was considered for the premiership in the twentieth century one was rejected simply for being a peer (Curzon 1923 - admittedly it didn't help that he was a grade-1 thug whom nobody liked either) one officially for being a peer (Halifax 1940 - probably realised he couldn't command public support ahead of Churchill) and one was appointed by a stitch-up on the understanding he would disclaim his peerage and return to the Commons (Home 1963). The only time there could be an exception is if there were no Parliament - I suppose in theory an election camapaign could cover that but it would look bad.
If they wanted to just base it on population alone the solution would have been for electors to be equal to the number of representatives [based on population size] per state. Instead the number of electors was set at number of representatives [based on population] PLUS number of Senators [fixed at 2].
Thus there are seven states that only have one representative because the population of the state is so low - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. However they all have 3 electoral college votes instead, effectively almost tripling their representation. While California has 53 representatives, its two senators bumps its electoral college votes just "just" 55 - a less than 4% increase in electors rather than tripling the total.
By population the seven states make up about 1.5% of the population - but they make up over 3.6% of the electoral college.
All this is by design so that states like California (or in their days I believe Virginia) could not dominate the smaller states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARifiLUKwxA
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
Surely a government has to be formed - ie actually have come into existence - before it can be presented to the House of Commons for an Affirmative Confidence vote! Corbyn could actually form a Government - a process which would take a few days - and by the time he has been defeated on the Confidence vote, the 14 day period will have pretty well expired and a Dissolution would automatically follow.
The outgoing PM stays in office until there is an incoming PM that can command the confidence of Parliament.
"Casino_Royale said:
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind."
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/4624/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-macron-becomes-an-even-stronger-favourite-for-french-president/p2
Take away the 2 senate electors from every state and Bush would have got 211 votes to Gore getting 226. It was essentially Bush getting the small states bonus that made him win.
In practice, the idea of a staged no-confidence vote is going to leave a big constitutional mess from which the government could take a kicking at the subsequent election.
I'd like to see Mrs May lay the motion of dissolution before the house, if only that it would completely split Labour if they're asked to vote against (or abstain, same difference here). If that doesn't pass then they should go down the legislative route and dare the Lords to vote against it.
The hilariously bad also endures I suppose.
I do wonder which PB headers will fall into the realm of forgotten masterpiece, future classic and hilariously bad.
Since you approve of nationalising the M6 Toll and making it free I presume you support Labour's Sion Simon for Metro Mayor and not the Tory's Andy Street, who backs more investment in public transport, cycling and walking?
Given that I also cycle to work and walk to do my shopping, I am all in favour of better cycle routes (I would certainly be happier with a proper cycle route along the A34).
But as the M6 toll is a national matter and the others are local, frankly I see no conflict in wanting both to happen.
Finally, I don't have a vote.
Tilden got a majority, not just plurality, of the popular vote and 184 electoral votes. Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes winning the election by one elector.
Had it not been for the small state bonus, Hayes would have won 143 electors and Tilden would have won 150 electors. Tilden would have got a clear majority of electors as well as a majority in the popular vote with no need to reach the Compromise of 1877 to resolve the election.
The result would have been identical to within one or two electors with Clinton vs Trump if states did not have the "extra" two, and were done entirely on population.
Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania gave a whole bunch of efficient votes...
Whereas the wide wide wide margin in California was the problem and vastly outweighed the population difference in the GOP's least efficient 55 collegiate votes - this would not have changed had California and Wyoming had the 'correct' number of electors.
"Upon landing in Lahore, the team was greeted by private security and escorted into one of many bombproof buses, before being driven through clear roads to the Pearl Continental hotel. There, the overseas players were put on the same floor, with around four armed guards to each room.
On the morning of the match, the squads travelling to the ground were put onto buses just outside the hotel reception. After waiting for close to 10 minutes, they pulled away in sync, with armed guards running alongside, turning into the road outside to join a formation of five or six vehicles with mounted machine guns - in front and behind the bus - as well as cars driving alongside the bus, within touching distance, boxing it in. The other side of the road was completely closed, with the same number of army vehicles set-up."
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-super-league-2016-17/content/story/1086442.html
Genuinely confused over here. Not as consistently ideological (or ideologically consistent) at any rate.
A few months ago I watched a piece on a failed NBA prospect who is now a journey man. Apparently there is big money in playing in Iraq (if you ever see it, its cash in hand from some very interesting individuals)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXN3TLVzm8
I make that a gas attack in Hamburg, machete and axe rampages in Dusseldorf, and now this - all in the space of 48 hours. Germany doesn't seem to be in a very good place right now.
The problem with removing tolls from the M6 Toll is that it will simply encourage a lot more discretionary car trips that are currently suppressed by the pricing and congestion. That in turn will cause more congestion, pollution, road casualties and obesity in the local area.
We've known since the SACTRA report that adding more Road capacity simply leads to more traffic demand, yet successive generations of decision makers must learn that unwelcome fact anew.
I don't have a vote either.
I do wonder how much prior attacks influence and encourage further attacks by those with a screw or two loose.
Pollution is best dealt with by improving the efficiency and output of vehicles, not by an artificial constraint on movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/11/call-to-boycott-tesco-over-endangered-white-men-claim
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/840565729162342400
Surely it's obvious that getting very drunk puts you in a vulnerable position (to robbery, as well as other sorts of crime)?
Michael Knowles
.@amazon has stopped allowing customers to buy the #1 best-selling book in the world, which criticizes Democrats. RETWEET!