Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."
When I read this site I'm constantly amazed how and why adults put faith in politicians. OK at some stage we all have to make a choice, but the sycophantic idolatry from some is weird.
The point is regardless of who is in govt and by what majority we all just get on with our lives, some will thrive and others not, and all at different times. Politicians have a negative effect on us all.
Well he was simply wrong. Civilisation itself only exists thanks to the development of government. Expecting politicians to be architects, painters or scientists is rather missing the point.
No, civilisation exists because of architects, painters or scientists. Brunel and Pasteur for example made a far more positive contribution than any politician.
Which came first, writing or government ? Quite clearly government - and the first writing was developed to keep government records.
Different issue. You are entitled to your view, mine is that we have far too many politicians and bureaucrats, 1000s in the UK alone, and nowhere near enough innovators and wealth creators. The country is drowning in debt because of inept and feckless govt, not because of architects, painters or scientists.
You are perfectly entitled to your own ideology, but Friedman's nostrum was simply wrong.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
If I were a Labour supporter I wouldn't get too excited, the Conservatives realise they've messed up big time and will now do everything to avoid an election for 5 years. Good thing too, we're all sick of voting.
For the good of everyone she should not remain PM.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
I always liked him but what you say is spot on, he also was unable to get his point over succinctly and had a tendancy to waffle. His QT audiace session was his best showing but you could feel support draining away with every long winded answer.
Brexit apart this Parliament will almost certainly have a very light legislative framework. I don't see it getting to Scottish standards where a minority government brought forward no legislation (other than a required budget) for over a year but it may not be far off.
The tasks to be undertaken in respect of the Reform Bill are huge. Our law has become increasingly entangled with EU law over 40 years and removing the references to EU institutions, replacing or effectively enacting directly applicable legislation from Europe with UK legislation and deciding what our framework is to be for things like competition law, agriculture and fishing is going to keep Parliament very busy. In some areas we are likely to need a holding position until the nature of our relationship with the EU post Brexit is determined.
The temptation might be to break the legislation into a dozen or more parts dealing with different areas but it is going to be some of the most complicated legislation this country has ever seen. A further temptation would be to seek to consolidate or even simplify this thicket of laws. Consolidation would be extremely attractive but a huge amount of work. Simplification is likely to prove too difficult in the current timeframe.
At the end of this process our Parliament will have a substantially increased scope of legislative competence. My guess is that this will prove to be the excuse for abandoning the cut in the number of MPs, a price that DUP are probably going to want paid anyway.
I've always felt that the cut to 600 MPs was an error anyway. Not least because any reduction disproportionately benefits the "big two" at the expense of smaller parties and independents.
I also feel the 5% band is too tight, and think you are more likely to get constituencies able to represent proper entities at the 10% (or even 15%) level. The alternative is that you see towns chopped into funny shaped bits in a bid for foolish consistency.
The entire debate does seem to resemble the question on what polish one should use for a turd. The Single Member requirement plus any close equalisation of constituency size means that the concept of using real communities is shit out of luck - unless we happen to fortunately divide into 650 (or 600) exactly equal natural communities. Which we don't - nowhere near.
The Boundaries Commission have an impossible task to do that, which is why we end up with completely artificial districts where you have to squint and look really quickly to say that it's all valid. And then convince yourself of a completely different validity when the boundaries are redrawn next time.
I wonder how many people know automatically which constituency they're in (I had to look it up specifically when I moved to my current home).
"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."
When I read this site I'm constantly amazed how and why adults put faith in politicians. OK at some stage we all have to make a choice, but the sycophantic idolatry from some is weird.
The point is regardless of who is in govt and by what majority we all just get on with our lives, some will thrive and others not, and all at different times. Politicians have a negative effect on us all.
It's a ludicrous quote. It was only through government that the activities of subsistence became sufficiently collectivised to allow architecture, painting, science, literature, etc. in large degree.
I would suggest that putting faith in economic ideologues is our main problem.
The invention of government might well have led to a fall in living standards for most people. It seems to have coincided with the switch from hunter-gathering to agriculture. Royalty, nobles, priests, civil servants, armies all had to be sustained by the peasants. But, it did enable bigger populations, protection from enemies, and innovation through patronage of artists, architects etc.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
No plenty of leaders have been Cable's age and if Lamb could not even beat Tim Farron why should he win this time?
Yes but those who preferred Farron to Lamb had no sense. Hopefully they will now discover some.
Disagree. Farron did well in his job, which was rebuilding the party after the disastrous 2015 GE. He won one by-election, and increased seats at the next GE.
He's a party man through and through. He knows it inside and out, and gets on very well with the activists. Even better, he was relatively unsullied by the coalition. But he was the wrong man to lead them into a GE, and it was a shame for him that an early one was called.
I don't think any of the other options two years ago (yes, even Lamb) would have done better. I hope Farron moves back to his old role as president of he party, where he can continue working behind the scenes, whilst a more saleable frontman takes over the public role.
He has some useful skills for the Lib Dems, and the party should use them.
Have had 2 messages suggesting that I should stand. But one was from a Labour Party member and what do they know about selecting good leaders.
My heart would have said Clegg, so probably a blessing in disguise that he lost his seat. I will have to listen to what the candidates say over the summer. Leaning towards Swinson.
Thanks ....
If eligible I go for old over young .... .... not quite the time for Jo, so the old goat gets it -(required for Queen's Speech velum) .... I mean of course old goat Lloyd George over sprightly youngster Jo Grimond.
I never knew Lloyd George (not sure if my father did) but spent a pleasant evening with Jo in the basement of the Oxford Union.
OT 28 years ago my father bought a cask of The Macallan - we sold it (only 56 litres left in it) got a cheque yesterday for a bit over £31,000!!
"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."
When I read this site I'm constantly amazed how and why adults put faith in politicians. OK at some stage we all have to make a choice, but the sycophantic idolatry from some is weird.
The point is regardless of who is in govt and by what majority we all just get on with our lives, some will thrive and others not, and all at different times. Politicians have a negative effect on us all.
Well he was simply wrong. Civilisation itself only exists thanks to the development of government. Expecting politicians to be architects, painters or scientists is rather missing the point.
Warfare is a great driver of technological change, medical research, and innovation.
And without knowledge of war (which requires central government) there would be much less great literature, and art.
Rereading The War of the Worlds, it occurred to me that within 50 years, a Western army would have Kerb-stomped the Martians.
You're obviously not acquainted with proportion of GDP the Martians have continually invested in their military capability.
Have had 2 messages suggesting that I should stand. But one was from a Labour Party member and what do they know about selecting good leaders.
My heart would have said Clegg, so probably a blessing in disguise that he lost his seat. I will have to listen to what the candidates say over the summer. Leaning towards Swinson.
Thanks ....
If eligible I go for old over young .... .... not quite the time for Jo, so the old goat gets it -(required for Queen's Speech velum) .... I mean of course old goat Lloyd George over sprightly youngster Jo Grimond.
I never knew Lloyd George (not sure if my father did) but spent a pleasant evening with Jo in the basement of the Oxford Union.
OT 28 years ago my father bought a cask of The Macallan - we sold it (only 56 litres left in it) got a cheque yesterday for a bit over £31,000!!
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
All those leaping to heap blame for Grenfell on the current government:
Concerns about fire risk of cladding raised in 2000
Concerns had been raised about the fire risk of cladding as far back as 2000 in a parliamentary report, it has emerged.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee launched an inquiry after a blaze tore through a 14-storey block of flats in Irvine, Ayrshire, in June 1999, killing an elderly man.
It concluded that cladding should be non-combustible or not pose an unacceptable level of risk to tenants.
The report said: “We do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
I think someone did ask her if she thought gay sex was a 'sin' or 'wrong' and simply said 'no'.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
I'm sure had she been leader of the Liberal party it would have come up, but yes, it would have been a fair question.
Mr. HYUFD, being popular amongst Lib Dem members and potential Lib Dem voters are not the same thing.
Cable's too left. Corbyn has that sewn up. Lamb's a nice, sensible, moderate centrist. Just what the party (perhaps the country too) needs.
Looking at the electoral map/situation, the goal for the LDs in the next election will be to take seats from Tories on the whole (the Scottish seats will be decided based on unionist tactical voting so leader near irrelevant there). What they basically need is someone who will appeal to soft Tory voters, while also remaining acceptable to Lab tactical voters. I do worry Cable will struggle on the first point (whereas Clegg would've struggled on the second). On that criteria Lamb is probably the better choice - centrist, but his work on mental health has been appreciated on all sides, and that should give him credibility on the left.
I haven't seen enough of Lamb to judge him as a media performer however, and one big thing in Cable's favour is name recognition - the media are more likely to listen when he speaks, and he may therefore succeed in getting the LD message drilled into people more than Lamb could.
Both Cable and Lamb are of the 'soft brexit' variety rather than being 'remain ultras' so the direction there will largely be the same either way.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
good point
Except its not:
Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday Morning, May faced a round of questions about Brexit, tax, public sector funding and if she believes gay sex is a sin.
Marr alluded to a conversation he had earlier in the programme with Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron about his own view towards gay sex.
The political show host asked: “You’re also a Christian. Do you think that gay sex is a sin?” “No,” May abruptly replied.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
Be sure to chalk up to the non-government tally only those inventions we made while hunter gatherers.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
I'm not sure about May, but I recall Gove being asked point blank, and he didn't hesitate for a second before responding. Now I really do not like Gove but that was exactly the kind of response Farron should have been giving.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
I would elect sewerage systems. But as that isn't on the list, I vote antibiotics. For the first time in history we can have some confidence of surviving a whole raft of diseases to live to old age.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
The English language and Associaton football are unquestionably Britain's greatest gifts to the world.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
Free market economics and capitalism.
All the others pale into insignificance compared to the thing that has lifted us from the dirt. Look at a graph of human development over the centuries. It's basically flat until we invented joint stock companies, free markets and proper banking systems. And then it goes exponential.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
It did seem weird that no-one seemed to ask May the same question (I might have missed it).
good point
Except its not:
Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday Morning, May faced a round of questions about Brexit, tax, public sector funding and if she believes gay sex is a sin.
Marr alluded to a conversation he had earlier in the programme with Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron about his own view towards gay sex.
The political show host asked: “You’re also a Christian. Do you think that gay sex is a sin?” “No,” May abruptly replied.
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
Pretty pleased. Backed Swinson at 3.5 on the 12th, for next Lib Dem leader, then the hedge I set up and forgot about was matched on Betfair at 1.3 yesterday [only remembered when I logged on today to make a lay at 1.59].
I do wonder if Farron's attitude or views towards homosexuality would have been questioned so much had he been of a different religion.
Who knows? Farron's problem was not that he was asked once but that he was asked every bloody time, when he needed to talk about other things. This was in part due to his not having thought of a good answer before he was asked for the first time. It became part of the journalistic zeitgeist that you had to pose this question. For a long time Jeremy Corbyn could not be interviewed by Home Jam Makers Monthly without being asked about shoot to kill (which in its original sense is probably still illegal anyway) -- how many months did it take the Labour press office to spot that Theresa May had decimated the police?
Jo Swinson will be asked about her young child. She needs to answer it in a way that closes the issue down, perhaps by pointing to her strong family life, adequate childcare arrangements, and the sexist nature of the question; perhaps like Cameron and Blair by simply ruling her family off-limits. Then it will stop. But if, like Farron, she hums and haws and agrees the questioner has a point and it is all a bit tricky, the questions will recur.
Farron's problem was that he never directly answered the question about his beliefs. He had some (fairly obviously pre-prepared) quibble about biblical exegesis, but that was clearly never going to fly. Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
If you are a true liberal you wouldn't ask that question in the first place because it doesn't matter. However people might vote for the Lib Dems, who aren't liberally minded.
Mr. F, concrete was used by the Romans in the construction of the Colosseum and the port at Ostia (they developed a variety that would set underwater).
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
Age should not be an undue barrier but it is not 'age now' rather than 'age at the next GE' which should be the relevant consideration for a potential party leader. Vince will be nearly 80 if the parliament runs to full term.
Mr. HYUFD, being popular amongst Lib Dem members and potential Lib Dem voters are not the same thing.
Cable's too left. Corbyn has that sewn up. Lamb's a nice, sensible, moderate centrist. Just what the party (perhaps the country too) needs.
Looking at the electoral map/situation, the goal for the LDs in the next election will be to take seats from Tories on the whole (the Scottish seats will be decided based on unionist tactical voting so leader near irrelevant there). What they basically need is someone who will appeal to soft Tory voters, while also remaining acceptable to Lab tactical voters. I do worry Cable will struggle on the first point (whereas Clegg would've struggled on the second). On that criteria Lamb is probably the better choice - centrist, but his work on mental health has been appreciated on all sides, and that should give him credibility on the left.
I haven't seen enough of Lamb to judge him as a media performer however, and one big thing in Cable's favour is name recognition - the media are more likely to listen when he speaks, and he may therefore succeed in getting the LD message drilled into people more than Lamb could.
Both Cable and Lamb are of the 'soft brexit' variety rather than being 'remain ultras' so the direction there will largely be the same either way.
There's also a massive need to get general vote share up. While further concentration of targetting made seat gains against the tide this time, there's a point of diminishing returns - more and more seats got hollowed out and in a lot of seats where Lib Dem votes were significant in the past (even formerly held seats), the vote share collapsed. Converting plausible targets is one essential thing (and, for this election, inarguably the correct decision - a close second in dozens of seats while losing all existing seats makes you an irrelevancy; gaining seats makes you 'on the way back' and relevant); getting future targets is also essential going forwards.
Hammond would be John Major 2. Of course Major won in 1992 a 4th general election victory for the Tories against the odds against a Labour leader who had made gains in the previous election by holding the Tory voteshare and after taking over from a female PM. So no parallels to now then!
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
Not just standardisation but also funding, and not just in obvious cases like space exploration. Our government should do more to encourage and subsidise innovation, both indirectly through tax breaks for R&D, and directly by paid commissions.
What seems odd about that list for the programme is that computers are not included, where arguably government moved to ensure Britain did not have a leading role, by suppressing development of first Colossus and then public key encryption that underlies ecommerce (discovered at GCHQ before it was a twinkle in RSAs' eyes) but it does include television. Half the United Nations claims to have invented television, and our man, Logie Baird, led us to a dead end.
My vote before seeing the programme would be the steam engine, I think.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
No plenty of leaders have been Cable's age and if Lamb could not even beat Tim Farron why should he win this time?
Yes but those who preferred Farron to Lamb had no sense. Hopefully they will now discover some.
Disagree. Farron did well in his job, which was rebuilding the party after the disastrous 2015 GE. He won one by-election, and increased seats at the next GE.
He's a party man through and through. He knows it inside and out, and gets on very well with the activists. Even better, he was relatively unsullied by the coalition. But he was the wrong man to lead them into a GE, and it was a shame for him that an early one was called.
I don't think any of the other options two years ago (yes, even Lamb) would have done better. I hope Farron moves back to his old role as president of he party, where he can continue working behind the scenes, whilst a more saleable frontman takes over the public role.
He has some useful skills for the Lib Dems, and the party should use them.
The Lib Dems need to reposition themselves IMO. With Labour and the Conservatives both lapsing into parochialism, there's an opportunity for a moderate explicitly internationalist party. The best party leader would be the one that has the strategic grasp to do what's necessary and can also articulate a new direction. I suspect that's Nick Clegg, but he's out of the picture.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
I would elect sewerage systems. But as that isn't on the list, I vote antibiotics. For the first time in history we can have some confidence of surviving a whole raft of diseases to live to old age.
This conversation has been had on here before, but I would put John Snow and the discovery of the necessity of a clean water supply above antibiotics. It fits in well with your mention of sewerage systems.
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
I would elect sewerage systems. But as that isn't on the list, I vote antibiotics. For the first time in history we can have some confidence of surviving a whole raft of diseases to live to old age.
You see I thought antibiotics as well. But then I started thinking about how they are starting to fail and how we have abused them. Now I am not so sure.
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
Age should not be an undue barrier but it is not 'age now' rather than 'age at the next GE' which should be the relevant consideration for a potential party leader. Vince will be nearly 80 if the parliament runs to full term.
Given the usual brand of politics on here, I find it astonishing that the enormous expansion of the role of government into the invention business is being countenanced.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Britain's Greatest Invention is on BBC2 tonight. We can keep score of Milton Friedman's adage discussed earlier in the thread that inventions do not come from central government.
The list: Antiobiotics Concrete The fridge The jet engine The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!) The steam engine The television
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
I would elect sewerage systems. But as that isn't on the list, I vote antibiotics. For the first time in history we can have some confidence of surviving a whole raft of diseases to live to old age.
You see I thought antibiotics as well. But then I started thinking about how they are starting to fail and how we have abused them. Now I am not so sure.
Oh and someone has already pointed out we didn't invent concrete, the Romans did. And theirs is much better than ours.
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
Age should not be an undue barrier but it is not 'age now' rather than 'age at the next GE' which should be the relevant consideration for a potential party leader. Vince will be nearly 80 if the parliament runs to full term.
Gladstone was 84 when he retired
And that is 84 in old money, when 84 meant having dodged every bullet of disease and famine and war.
Hammond would be John Major 2. Of course Major won in 1992 a 4th general election victory for the Tories against the odds against a Labour leader who had made gains in the previous election by holding the Tory voteshare and after taking over from a female PM. So no parallels to now then!
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Comments
Anyone elses time stamp 2 hours ahead?
Mature Mutton or Well Aged Goat
They better hope Lamb wins if Davey is the alternative.
But even without Brexit oil and the SNP's increasingly exposed record in government would have made independence less likely.
The Single Member requirement plus any close equalisation of constituency size means that the concept of using real communities is shit out of luck - unless we happen to fortunately divide into 650 (or 600) exactly equal natural communities. Which we don't - nowhere near.
The Boundaries Commission have an impossible task to do that, which is why we end up with completely artificial districts where you have to squint and look really quickly to say that it's all valid. And then convince yourself of a completely different validity when the boundaries are redrawn next time.
I wonder how many people know automatically which constituency they're in (I had to look it up specifically when I moved to my current home).
Cable's too left. Corbyn has that sewn up. Lamb's a nice, sensible, moderate centrist. Just what the party (perhaps the country too) needs.
Is May still there?
Time to go. Put Hammond in as a caretaker.
They say senior intelligence officials will be interviewed about whether Mr Trump tried to end an inquiry into his sacked national security adviser.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40283036
Call it.
He's a party man through and through. He knows it inside and out, and gets on very well with the activists. Even better, he was relatively unsullied by the coalition. But he was the wrong man to lead them into a GE, and it was a shame for him that an early one was called.
I don't think any of the other options two years ago (yes, even Lamb) would have done better. I hope Farron moves back to his old role as president of he party, where he can continue working behind the scenes, whilst a more saleable frontman takes over the public role.
He has some useful skills for the Lib Dems, and the party should use them.
OT 28 years ago my father bought a cask of The Macallan - we sold it (only 56 litres left in it) got a cheque yesterday for a bit over £31,000!!
Para 2 - Lucky sod
Gay marriage (for example) is still a matter of hot debate within the Anglican church; to suggest that he didn't really have an opinion on it, or that if he did it was of no concern, was an indefensible position for leader of a party which was in the forefront of campaigning for it.
It would have been an easy matter to shut the subject down, simply by saying that it was an issue that didn't bother him at all - that he was unable to do so kept the issue alive.
When considering the principles at stake, one should consider that there is an extremely wide spectrum of perfectly acceptable beliefs in this country - but the spectrum of what is practicable for the leader of any particular party to espouse is necessarily somewhat narrower.
Moats and beams.
Farron expressly said that the LDs would not enter coalition with anyone, however with him sidelined a new leader may have a different view.
I can imagine how much Vince loved his ministerial car.
Mr. L, true. But Lib Dems should listen to the wise words of Morris Dancer. I was right about Farron, after all.
Concerns about fire risk of cladding raised in 2000
Concerns had been raised about the fire risk of cladding as far back as 2000 in a parliamentary report, it has emerged.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee launched an inquiry after a blaze tore through a 14-storey block of flats in Irvine, Ayrshire, in June 1999, killing an elderly man.
It concluded that cladding should be non-combustible or not pose an unacceptable level of risk to tenants.
The report said: “We do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grenfell-tower-fire-live-updates-10619185
Although, to be fair, his campaign team would've been bitterly disappointed had he not supported himself.
Pendant alert correct on Ming.
https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/875001300655779841
Antiobiotics
Concrete
The fridge
The jet engine
The mobile phone (with mention of Acorn Computers - wahey!)
The steam engine
The television
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5QRlT3MhZLnsTjrGswV2FlJ/vote-for-britains-greatest-invention
None of these came from central government. Central government may have helped development - e.g. the jet engine - but even in that case they hindered development for many years before finally embracing it. At one point they even gave jet development to Rover!
IMO where central government does play a role is in standardisation and regulation. Europe's mobile phone market managed to expand into the world because of the EU reserving frequencies and adopting a common standard, instead of the US's three battling standards.
We can be sure buildings will not fall down not because government developed concrete, but because they developed and adopted standards for concrete (e.g. BS 8500) that everyone should work to.
We can buy electric fridges that plug into the mains in our homes because they standardised home electricity supply voltages and sockets.
Governments are best as enablers, not as choosers of winners.
I imagine he enjoyed doing the job, but why shouldn't he? You don't go into politics to visit local fêtes for several decades.
A rare case of a right step in the Conservative campaign
I haven't seen enough of Lamb to judge him as a media performer however, and one big thing in Cable's favour is name recognition - the media are more likely to listen when he speaks, and he may therefore succeed in getting the LD message drilled into people more than Lamb could.
Both Cable and Lamb are of the 'soft brexit' variety rather than being 'remain ultras' so the direction there will largely be the same either way.
Appearing on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday Morning, May faced a round of questions about Brexit, tax, public sector funding and if she believes gay sex is a sin.
Marr alluded to a conversation he had earlier in the programme with Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron about his own view towards gay sex.
The political show host asked: “You’re also a Christian. Do you think that gay sex is a sin?”
“No,” May abruptly replied.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/30/theresa-may-has-been-asked-if-she-thinks-gay-sex-is-a-sin/
Will you please post the winner of the 1.30 at Newbury here at 11.45am.
Thanks
A beam might be quite useful with a moat.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
All the others pale into insignificance compared to the thing that has lifted us from the dirt. Look at a graph of human development over the centuries. It's basically flat until we invented joint stock companies, free markets and proper banking systems. And then it goes exponential.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
While further concentration of targetting made seat gains against the tide this time, there's a point of diminishing returns - more and more seats got hollowed out and in a lot of seats where Lib Dem votes were significant in the past (even formerly held seats), the vote share collapsed.
Converting plausible targets is one essential thing (and, for this election, inarguably the correct decision - a close second in dozens of seats while losing all existing seats makes you an irrelevancy; gaining seats makes you 'on the way back' and relevant); getting future targets is also essential going forwards.
What seems odd about that list for the programme is that computers are not included, where arguably government moved to ensure Britain did not have a leading role, by suppressing development of first Colossus and then public key encryption that underlies ecommerce (discovered at GCHQ before it was a twinkle in RSAs' eyes) but it does include television. Half the United Nations claims to have invented television, and our man, Logie Baird, led us to a dead end.
My vote before seeing the programme would be the steam engine, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow
John Snow is a much-neglected English hero.
(Has there ever been a leader of a political party who has had the piss ripped out of him like Nuttall? I'll take anywhere on the planet....)
Er....hmmmmm.......