I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
The issue is that foxes are vermin, like rats, not food animals.
We all agree that it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem is with the alternatives to hunting: trapping, poisoning and shooting all have their disadvantages. If you do nothing then you end up with the problems of urban foxes and overcrowding/starvation.
The Burns Inquiry did not reach the conclusion that hunting was cruel - it certainly proposed that there were aspects which could be better regulated (and which most hunters would agree with) but ultimately it was a political decision to ban hunting, not one driven by animal welfare considerations
"The committee's most reported conclusion was that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.[6] In line with its remit, the committee did not, however, draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue.[3] In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild...
I agree with you but hunting is really no longer a live issue, ConHome was full of anecdotes about it lost them votes this time and May has been roundly condemned for opening the issue again.
It impacts on my vote because being in favour of killing for sport tells me something about an individual.
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.
I have reduced my meat intake, although I am a fervent seafood lover and eat fish 3 times a week or so. Veg and pulse curries and stir fries are a favourite too.
I agree. It's surprising how much flavour there is in a truly free range chicken compared with the cheap supermarket brand. We use one chicken breast per stir fry for the two of us and have more than enough chicken flavour.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please. We buy crap cos it's cheap.
Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.
I have reduced my meat intake, although I am a fervent seafood lover and eat fish 3 times a week or so. Veg and pulse curries and stir fries are a favourite too.
I agree. It's surprising how much flavour there is in a truly free range chicken compared with the cheap supermarket brand. We use one chicken breast per stir fry for the two of us and have more than enough chicken flavour.
That's one of our 'meat' days
Agreed, my partner and I have one free range breast for a stir fry or in a curry if going meaty and it's plenty.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
Country was a better place 20 years ago Elite: 32 Public: 54
Country is a better place today Elite: 42 Public: 27
Net 'better place today: Elite: +10 Public: -27
I wonder if they were responding online.
It's statistically bogus. "Elite" isn't a defined term and they are not comparing like for like datasets in a controlled way. Would you be surprised to find a Daily Mail readers poll gives different numbers from a BPC approved Yougov poll?
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
They managed to find someone 15 years older than May and 7 years older than Steptoe Corbyn.
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
They managed to find someone 15 years older than May and 7 years older than Steptoe Corbyn.
No mean feat.
Not many parties would go for a candidate who used to be someone that used to be someone
Country was a better place 20 years ago Elite: 32 Public: 54
Country is a better place today Elite: 42 Public: 27
Net 'better place today: Elite: +10 Public: -27
I wonder if they were responding online.
It's statistically bogus. "Elite" isn't a defined term and they are not comparing like for like datasets in a controlled way. Would you be surprised to find a Daily Mail readers poll gives different numbers from a BPC approved Yougov poll?
I think Chatham House may be taken a tad more seriously than the Daily Mail. Let me guess. You don't like the results? You think not listening will make it go away?
Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:
Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.
• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.
• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.
• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.
• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)
Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.
The Elite know best......
Perceived effects of immigration... Elite/Public Has been good for country: 57 / 25 Neutral : 16 / 31 Has been bad for country 24 / 44
Net Good: +33 / -19
NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK
Key word - "perceived".
The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking
Yep - and those who perceived it to be a bad thing have never connected it to cheaper goods and services, greater demand and more jobs. Swings and roundabouts.
Yes the elite feel they've done well out of it and the public feel they haven't. Ladders and Snakes.
Yep - it's all about perception. Many will start to discover the benefits of EU membership when we have left.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
If the Foxes were such a pest, then why do a lot of hunts actually go out of their way to support and encourage their breeding? That the Hunt is a notoriously inefficient way of culling foxes while providing a interesting days exercise for the riders and horses is well known.
Mr. Woolie, there are a lot of engineers employed. Not only that, they're close enough that they can swap teams without sometimes moving house or even their children's school. So, that means strong clusters of very well-paid people which bolster the local economy (think it's Oxfordshire) as well as a substantial supply chain.
I'm not saying it's a huge sector, but it's an undoubted and substantial bonus for the UK.
We've utterly decimated our agrarian lifestyle and we don't make anything, it's difficult to see what GB PLC offers the world.
As more people join the developed world you can be quite specialized and still pay your way. To name a few arbitrary things, the UK is strong in tourism, financial services, English teaching, pharmaceuticals and computer games. That's plenty to pay your way in the world, and none it involves growing or manufacturing anything.
Charles said :" The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild... :"
Well, I have often thought we might consider walling off Cornwall and re-introducing bears, wolves, etc, and allowing firearms for the use of Rangers only. We used to canoe camp in the Canadian Quetico teeming with all kinds of wildlife, only not, definitely not, grizzly bears. The fish we ate was really fresh.
Mr. Woolie, there are a lot of engineers employed. Not only that, they're close enough that they can swap teams without sometimes moving house or even their children's school. So, that means strong clusters of very well-paid people which bolster the local economy (think it's Oxfordshire) as well as a substantial supply chain.
I'm not saying it's a huge sector, but it's an undoubted and substantial bonus for the UK.
Country was a better place 20 years ago Elite: 32 Public: 54
Country is a better place today Elite: 42 Public: 27
Net 'better place today: Elite: +10 Public: -27
I wonder if they were responding online.
It's statistically bogus. "Elite" isn't a defined term and they are not comparing like for like datasets in a controlled way. Would you be surprised to find a Daily Mail readers poll gives different numbers from a BPC approved Yougov poll?
My point was that 20 years ago they would not have been responding online. We would not be having this debate either. The internet was in its infancy, so many things it enables now did not exist. Twenty years ago we were younger and that was great, but today we take for granted so much that we did not have then.
Country was a better place 20 years ago Elite: 32 Public: 54
Country is a better place today Elite: 42 Public: 27
Net 'better place today: Elite: +10 Public: -27
I wonder if they were responding online.
It's statistically bogus. "Elite" isn't a defined term and they are not comparing like for like datasets in a controlled way. Would you be surprised to find a Daily Mail readers poll gives different numbers from a BPC approved Yougov poll?
I think Chatham House may be taken a tad more seriously than the Daily Mail. Let me guess. You don't like the results? You think not listening will make it go away?
No. It's statistically invalid for the reasons I gave, Chatham House, or not Chatham House. The valid results show on attitudes to the EU, to take one of the topics, that clearly more people are favourable to the EU than not, but there are significant minorities that are unhappy with it. That's the valid data. We can interpret it as we like.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
That certainly falls into the category of First World Problems.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
I'm still waiting for Roger to appear to tell us whether he has opened up any of his mansions to the Grenfel victims...
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
4/12 LD MP's are female, and we have the first Arab MP.
It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.
Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?
The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.
That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.
Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....
All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing
I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)
I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.
Is the worship of 22-yr old nubile Corbynistettes a thing, then?
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
Entitlement culture of the wealthy is extraordinary!
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
4/12 LD MP's are female, and we have the first Arab MP.
I'd missed the Arab MP tbf. OK, some progress from the GQ selection of the last parliament.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
Cable standing for the leadership. The man who was Secreatary of State for Tuition Fees. That will finally sink the party full stop. Rumours Vera Hobhouse could stand. Much better choice.
older voters will not forgive May for the dementia tax and trying to undo the triple pension lock, and Winter fuel allowance. She could go into an election at any time in the future promising them the Earth but they wont trust her. The Tories should go for Boris Johnson. They have nothing to lose. Only he can restore their majority.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
We're still all paying the price for the last time Labour were in power.
a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.
So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
We could always have had a blue passport.
There has never been any treaty obligation for us to go maroon, and - indeed - one other EU state has a blue/black passport.
The conventions on passports are covered by the UK's membership of the ICAO, and the EU is not a signatory of the treaties that bind it. In the 1980s, the ICAO established guidelines for passport size, and for machine readable elements.
Where the EU was involved was that it passed, in 1981, a non-binding recommendation that EU member states should have similar coloured passports (which, in itself, was in-line with ICAO guidelines that continental areas have similar passports). And hence the fact that while Norway, Russia, Turkey and Greenland are not members of the EU, they all have maroon passports too. (Mexico, the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia and almost all of the Americas have blue or black passports. The majority of Africa has green.)
-- just to add, the EU does require us to have certain text on the passport which will obviously go post Brexit. I think it also requires us to have a page in the passport with the details in all EU languages. Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.
Post-Brexit the government will just have to ignore the ICAO convention, print the passport as blue and pretend it was an EU directive all along. For many Leavers the passport colour was a decisive factor in their vote. If the government persists with the maroon one, ICAO convention or not, the sense of betrayal will be overwhelming.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
Cable standing for the leadership. The man who was Secreatary of State for Tuition Fees. That will finally sink the party full stop. Rumours Vera Hobhouse could stand. Much better choice.
I actually find it very funny that with tower blocks burning down and Brexit negotiations starting, there are people who want to discuss the leadership of the LibDems.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
You should remind them their wages depend on a strong economy. Austerity is not a choice, it's a result of living beyond means.
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
And to make it even funnier, he is citing his disapproval of hunting as a reason for disliking the UK, having lived quite happily in (of all countries!) Italy.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
The issue is that foxes are vermin, like rats, not food animals.
We all agree that it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem is with the alternatives to hunting: trapping, poisoning and shooting all have their disadvantages. If you do nothing then you end up with the problems of urban foxes and overcrowding/starvation.
The Burns Inquiry did not reach the conclusion that hunting was cruel - it certainly proposed that there were aspects which could be better regulated (and which most hunters would agree with) but ultimately it was a political decision to ban hunting, not one driven by animal welfare considerations
"The committee's most reported conclusion was that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.[6] In line with its remit, the committee did not, however, draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue.[3] In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild...
I agree with you but hunting is really no longer a live issue, ConHome was full of anecdotes about it lost them votes this time and May has been roundly condemned for opening the issue again.
It impacts on my vote because being in favour of killing for sport tells me something about an individual.
Someone asked her a question and she answered it. What she said was not unreasonable.
But the new settlement is working well. Intrusive hunt saboteurs and politically motivated prosecutions are an issue, so I could see a reform bill to tidy up some loose edges and provide a safe harbour provision. But not a priority.
More than 50% of people in the EU and in the Uk are protectionist - because they don't understand how lack of competition is like communism and harmful to the economy in the long term.
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
That and a PhD in economics?
One hopes that Uncle Vince can resist the urge to wave his nuclear weapon at The Telegraph again.
I see Vince has launched his bid by setting out the LD response to the 417 recessions he predicts will hit the UK In this parliament. That, and some joke about Gordon Brown.
They managed to find someone 15 years older than May and 7 years older than Steptoe Corbyn.
More than 50% of people in the EU and in the Uk are protectionist - because they don't understand how lack of competition is like communism and harmful to the economy in the long term.
One can only imagine the frothing if a Brexited Uk set up the same protectionist stance that the EU has with many third world states...
I'm looking forward to the first "Brexit free trade will be bad for Africa" story...
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.
So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
We could always have had a blue passport.
There has never been any treaty obligation for us to go maroon, and - indeed - one other EU state has a blue/black passport.
The conventions on passports are covered by the UK's membership of the ICAO, and the EU is not a signatory of the treaties that bind it. In the 1980s, the ICAO established guidelines for passport size, and for machine readable elements.
Where the EU was involved was that it passed, in 1981, a non-binding recommendation that EU member states should have similar coloured passports (which, in itself, was in-line with ICAO guidelines that continental areas have similar passports). And hence the fact that while Norway, Russia, Turkey and Greenland are not members of the EU, they all have maroon passports too. (Mexico, the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia and almost all of the Americas have blue or black passports. The majority of Africa has green.)
-- just to add, the EU does require us to have certain text on the passport which will obviously go post Brexit. I think it also requires us to have a page in the passport with the details in all EU languages. Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.
Post-Brexit the government will just have to ignore the ICAO convention, print the passport as blue and pretend it was an EU directive all along. For many Leavers the passport colour was a decisive factor in their vote. If the government persists with the maroon one, ICAO convention or not, the sense of betrayal will be overwhelming.
If the passport colour is a reason to screw up the country's economy and international relationships then they should be considered too mentally immature to vote.
It is the most bonkers thing I have read on here in quite some time.
I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.
It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.
I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.
What is it, though?
My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.
Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.
Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
And to make it even funnier, he is citing his disapproval of hunting as a reason for disliking the UK, having lived quite happily in (of all countries!) Italy.
In fairness their annual massacre of migratory birds seems to have more in common with industrial farming than hunting.
If the Tories hand over to Corbyn, or if he tables a MONC and the loyalists surprise many by voting in favour, the problem for the Labour plus rainbow government will be that they won't be able to call a GE when they want, but the Tories will.
Why? Because Labour would need a 2/3 majority, which they could only achieve with Tories voting in favour, which the Tories wouldn't. The Tories would say "Fine - just hand back over to us". Alternatively they could no-confidence themselves, but while chatterers have speculated about that as an option, it would make Labour look absurd - especially with most of the media Tory - and would be very unlikely. As for the Tories, all they would need to do is rope their loyalist pals into voting for a MONC and then say "No, actually, we can't form a government - we want a GE". Governing when you can't call a GE but your opponents can is the bane of any minority government, of course.
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
4/12 LD MP's are female, and we have the first Arab MP.
The colour and gender of those elected is down to the electorate not the party.
Latest Mori findings today shows that there was a swing to the Conservatives among older voters, and that 60% of Labour's vote was younger voters 18 to twenties.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
I've got to say that when I've talked to people working in public services I have rarely been impressed. Since the recession in 2008 I have been through 2 departmental restructures, 1 total company restructure, have had pay cuts initially and very restricted pay growth. We have had to work out how to deliver much more with less capital and workers. I have talked to police, teachers and doctors and appreciate that they have had a lot of the same. The problem I have is they think I get paid much more than them and get massive bonuses like city bankers.
So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?
Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.
So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.
I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.
Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?
If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)
What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?
Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.
We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.
An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.
I think that does slightly depend on the local supermarket...
Did anyone else see those hilarious spoof "Boris" front pages for today's Sun, Daily Mirror, and Daily Mail? The story is that Boris would like to serve under Corbyn. I thought they were very well made.
I'm not sure whether they'd be welcome here, but they are at the following links:
So, let me get this right, neo-Marxist Tyson is whingeing about Brexit because he's a rentier property owner with a potentially massive tax bill??????
That's so far beyond parody it goes right round the other side and trombones parody from behind.
And to make it even funnier, he is citing his disapproval of hunting as a reason for disliking the UK, having lived quite happily in (of all countries!) Italy.
In fairness their annual massacre of migratory birds seems to have more in common with industrial farming than hunting.
Commercial shoots are truly horrible. Not sport at all.
When I go shooting, we have 5-6 mates, walking around a few fields in the sun. Not really fussed if we hit anything or not. And all the birds get eaten afterwards.
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
4/12 LD MP's are female, and we have the first Arab MP.
The colour and gender of those elected is down to the electorate not the party.
True, but the party has to select them first so that they can be elected. You cannot put up 12 white men and have the electors magically return 6 women and 6 BME MPs
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
Mr. Nabavi, when fees reared their ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled!
Mr. Horse, welcome to pb.com. Doubt it'd play that way. Corbyn would write cheques for free unicorns and the Conservatives would vote it down. He'd then challenge them to an election and realpolitik would force them to accept.
Can you imagine if we have a coalition government between Corbyn's Lab (possibly 73 at next election) and Dr Vince's Libs (possibly 79 by next election) People will be betting on whether the PM or DPM is going to die first!
Cable standing for the leadership. The man who was Secreatary of State for Tuition Fees. That will finally sink the party full stop. Rumours Vera Hobhouse could stand. Much better choice.
The Labour party introduced tuition fees. University could be paid for by tyhe taxpayer when only 5% went to Uni, as in my day. Now over 40% go to uni they should expect to pay out of future earnings once they reach a certain level.
Did anyone else see those hilarious spoof "Boris" front pages for today's Sun, Daily Mirror, and Daily Mail? The story is that Boris would like to serve under Corbyn. I thought they were very well made.
I'm not sure whether they'd be welcome here, but they are at the following links:
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
Some people on here should actually try speaking to workers on the front line. I'm lucky because I have family members who work across the public services.
You should remind them their wages depend on a strong economy. Austerity is not a choice, it's a result of living beyond means.
Have you had a 14% real terms decrease in your wages? No? You haven't? You remind them why they should have another 14% pay cut....I want to keep my head on my neck thanx.
News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.
As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.
So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.
And in future, bright children of all backgrounds (assuming the admissions policy is on some objective basis) will be able to benefit. There may be a deadweight cost for about 5 years
I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that
To be clear, here's why I object:
1. Overall, the amount of expenditure on schooling itself will reduce, yet overall the state may not even be saving any money despite the cuts in state schools. So, cuts without even the rationale of being necessary to improve the public finances.
2. Those savings are instead being frittered away by making the parents of those who chose to send their children there considerably better off. Cuts for the many to line the pockets of the few who could afford private school fees.
3. It's a huge assumption that admissions will change and very clearly a wrong one from what I can see. It will remain an elite school. At best, perhaps slightly less elite than previously if we're lucky and a few more kids get the opportunity to go there who wouldn't, but it will only be a few. It will be luck as the state has no control over admissions policies in free schools.
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
It's less learning the lessons, it's more generating the money.
Although I admit tone and empathy are underrated political skills within the party.
I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.
I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:
1) Kill as few as possible 2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc. 3) Kill it as quickly as possible
The issue is that foxes are vermin, like rats, not food animals.
We all agree that it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible. The problem is with the alternatives to hunting: trapping, poisoning and shooting all have their disadvantages. If you do nothing then you end up with the problems of urban foxes and overcrowding/starvation.
The Burns Inquiry did not reach the conclusion that hunting was cruel - it certainly proposed that there were aspects which could be better regulated (and which most hunters would agree with) but ultimately it was a political decision to ban hunting, not one driven by animal welfare considerations
"The committee's most reported conclusion was that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises" the welfare of the quarry species.[6] In line with its remit, the committee did not, however, draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue.[3] In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
The optimal solution from a pure animal welfare perspective would be to reintroduce the foxes natural predators. But voters seem to have an issue with wolves and bears being released into the wild...
I agree with you but hunting is really no longer a live issue, ConHome was full of anecdotes about it lost them votes this time and May has been roundly condemned for opening the issue again.
It impacts on my vote because being in favour of killing for sport tells me something about an individual.
Not really. Hunting has been a fundamental part of human psyche for hundreds of thousands of years.
If you hate people for it, you really hate yourself. Which actually tells me something about you as an individual.
I hope the Government learns much more from the election result then many PB tories seem to have. I really, really don't want to see PM Corbyn. It would ruin this country.
Sir Vincent announces his candidature for HMs crusty old goat
Ticks all the boxes
Male Pale Stale
Vital to select a middle class white male. LDs will do the odd female for knitting and childcare issues but no ethics in winnable seats. Must be pure to be Liberal!
4/12 LD MP's are female, and we have the first Arab MP.
The colour and gender of those elected is down to the electorate not the party.
True, but the party has to select them first so that they can be elected. You cannot put up 12 white men and have the electors magically return 6 women and 6 BME MPs
You can because the electorate can vote for women and MME from the other parties.
Mr. L, Lysimachus and Seleucus were in their 70s when they contested mastery of the world at Corupedium.
Of course, they were both miles better than Vince Cable.
Indeed. The Wiki entry on the battle concludes: "It was typical of the times that these two former companions and former allies should, as old men, end up fighting each other to the death."
Cable has left open the option of running as a caretaker leader. Clearly him and Swinson are working together on this. Let Cable 'steady the ship' in the short term while prepping Swinson to take over in time for a new election.
In the event of a snap election, I don't think the age thing is too much of an issue for Cable - no-one will be voting for him as PM, so what does it actually matter how old he is? Old is old, he will simply be seen as equally pale and stale as May and Corbyn. If the US can elect 70 year Trump or Clinton, I don't see his age being a barrier.
a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.
So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
We could alrench and Russian.
Post-Brexit the government will just have to ignore the ICAO convention, print the passport as blue and pretend it was an EU directive all along. For many Leavers the passport colour was a decisive factor in their vote. If the government persists with the maroon one, ICAO convention or not, the sense of betrayal will be overwhelming.
If the passport colour is a reason to screw up the country's economy and international relationships then they should be considered too mentally immature to vote.
It is the most bonkers thing I have read on here in quite some time.
As I said on yesterday's thread, it is all especially poignant as passports are on the verge of being phased out. Face recognition cameras will check you as you board and disembark, speeding up everything.
It makes total sense. Carrying around a folded booklet to prove your ID is essentially Victorian.
A passport does a lot more than that. It tells the reader where you have been and when. This is useful information, not just for governments but for matters like money laundering regulations where it is all too common to have a name flagged up as a person of interest and to have to show that the person who did whatever is not this person.
a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.
So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
We could alrench and Russian.
Post-Brexit the government will just have to ignore the ICAO convention, print the passport as blue and pretend it was an EU directive all along. For many Leavers the passport colour was a decisive factor in their vote. If the government persists with the maroon one, ICAO convention or not, the sense of betrayal will be overwhelming.
If the passport colour is a reason to screw up the country's economy and international relationships then they should be considered too mentally immature to vote.
It is the most bonkers thing I have read on here in quite some time.
As I said on yesterday's thread, it is all especially poignant as passports are on the verge of being phased out. Face recognition cameras will check you as you board and disembark, speeding up everything.
It makes total sense. Carrying around a folded booklet to prove your ID is essentially Victorian.
Booklets with a cover were introduced in 1915, so before the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial and therefore, yes, the Victorian period
a lot will depend on how the BREXIT negotiations are viewed (and reported), DD is unlikely to pull many rabbits out of the hat for those voting to leave - maybe a Blue passport design (and I am not joking) is all he may be able to offer in the next 6 months or so, the BREXIT bill is a tricky lose-lose as I see it. Farage et al have persuaded a number that Brussels owes us money, so when a modest 25Bn deal is struck - that will appear a big loss.
So in sum, I think things will get worse for the Blues - there's no quick wins from BREXIT (passports aside) and a heck of a lot of unknowns - farm subsidies, higher education money, Airbus colbaoration, EU residents rights etc etc - all of these are likely to make some waves with little gain for the Tories - this may be their annus horriblus
We could always have had a blue passport.
There has never been any treaty obligation for us to go maroon, and - indeed - one other EU state has a blue/black passport.
The conventions on passports are covered by the UK's membership of the ICAO, and the EU is not a signatory of the treaties that bind it. In the 1980s, the ICAO established guidelines for passport size, and for machine readable elements.
Where the EU was involved was that it passed, in 1981, a non-binding recommendation that EU member states should have similar coloured passports (which, in itself, was in-line with ICAO guidelines that continental areas have similar passports). And hence the fact that while Norway, Russia, Turkey and Greenland are not members of the EU, they all have maroon passports too. (Mexico, the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia and almost all of the Americas have blue or black passports. The majority of Africa has green.)
-- just to add, the EU does require us to have certain text on the passport which will obviously go post Brexit. I think it also requires us to have a page in the passport with the details in all EU languages. Under ICAO guidelines, I believe a passport is only required to have the host country's language plus one of English, French and Russian.
Post-Brexit the government will just have to ignore the ICAO convention, print the passport as blue and pretend it was an EU directive all along. For many Leavers the passport colour was a decisive factor in their vote. If the government persists with the maroon one, ICAO convention or not, the sense of betrayal will be overwhelming.
If the passport colour is a reason to screw up the country's economy and international relationships then they should be considered too mentally immature to vote.
It is the most bonkers thing I have read on here in quite some time.
Mr. L, the Diadochi period isn't one generally known about but it's absolutely fascinating.
It's like the antithesis of modern Labour and Conservative parties. Instead of no good leaders, there are too many, all bold, ruthless, brave, sly and all battling or allying with one another to take over or carve a piece from the territory Alexander conquered.
[As an aside, that territory extended from Albania and Egyp in the west, to the eastern border of modern day Pakistan. Includes Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, an absolutely massive area. And Alexander apparently had plans to conquer west after he returned home].
It seems that many PB Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the election. They have gone back into their complacancy.
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
We only get wealthier through increased productivity.
Productivity has stalled in the UK over the last decade. It needs to improve in both the public sector and the private sector.
The internet, artifial intelligence and a host of other technical advances provides a mass of opportunities to improve productivity. Teaching is due for a step change in productivity.
1 is subjective. You have a rat infestation. Keep them? Kill them? Some people like rats.
3 I think is superseded by the cruelty involved. Try not to be cruel to animals. People of course say that to chase a fox until it is exhausted and then rip it apart using a pack of hounds is cruel. And indeed were it you or I being chased it would be cruel. But the issue is far less clear cut if you are a fox, as determined by the Burns enquiry. Plus I suppose the analogy again is with a rat. If you are trying to kill one (people often use Sealyham terriers) then there is a chase involved and that chase is arguably less cruel than other methods, which should be the determining factor).
Personally I have a real dislike for foxes having seen what they have done to my chickens in the past. I also have a dislike for rats and whoever above claimed that they can be kept under control with good waste management really must be a townie because they clearly have no idea about rats in the countryside.
But.
I am genuinely unsure about the best way to kill them (foxes and rats). Or rather I don't think there are any 'good' ways, only 'least bad' ways.
I won't use poisons because I worry about other animals eating it or eating the dead fox and so dying (we have red kites around which are basically British vultures).
I won't use snares because they are definitely cruel and again you risk other animals.
That leaves shooting or hunting with dogs. I am afraid I am unconvinced about the arguments in favour of hunting with dogs.
Two reasons for this.
Firstly the idea that being ripped apart by dogs is a 'humane' end just doesn't convince me at all. I am pretty sure if you asked any human how they would like to die then being ripped apart by dogs would not be anywhere near the top of their list.
Secondly we do know that hunts promote foxes on the land they hunt to allow them prey. If I want to get rid of a pest then the last thing I should be doing is breeding more of them.
So for me it comes down to shooting as the best of a bad lot. It is certainly not perfect and I have seen more than my fair share of injured foxes over the years where morons have taken pot shots or where even a good shot has missed. But it still strikes me as the most effective, honest and humane way of dealing with pests. The downside is you need to be willing to put in the time both to ensure you are a good enough shot and to stake out the ground to await the fox coming to you.
What is the latest news on the whole 'associate citizenship' offer? Guy Verhofstadt spoke about it a lot, and it got support from various politicians on our side. Of course, it would be quite complicated to implement but if there was will on both sides I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Treated along the same lines as dual citizenship.
It seems to me that the UK government should bite Verhofstadt's hand off to get this associate citizenship thing through. It would at a stroke placate millions of angry remainers. It would therefore give them more cover to get away with a harder brexit with much less opposition.
As I said on yesterday's thread, it is all especially poignant as passports are on the verge of being phased out. Face recognition cameras will check you as you board and disembark, speeding up everything.
It makes total sense. Carrying around a folded booklet to prove your ID is essentially Victorian.
Even if you have face recognition the passport itself carries an authoritative digitised image of your face that is machine readable, which your face can be compared to. That's a lot more reliable than building the infrastructure so that every border point can look up your face in real-time. In fact a lot of countries would simply not be trusted with bulk access to such data.
Comments
It impacts on my vote because being in favour of killing for sport tells me something about an individual.
That's one of our 'meat' days
Good work, comrade @tyson.
No mean feat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/southern-rail-drivers-reject-75000-pay-deal-trigger-overtime/
I'm not saying it's a huge sector, but it's an undoubted and substantial bonus for the UK.
People overdo the gloom.
Well, I have often thought we might consider walling off Cornwall and re-introducing bears, wolves, etc, and allowing firearms for the use of Rangers only. We used to canoe camp in the Canadian Quetico teeming with all kinds of wildlife, only not, definitely not, grizzly bears. The fish we ate was really fresh.
https://twitter.com/ElContador2000/status/876869566542094337
I have seen a lot of ignorant commenets like "well it seems 40% of the population thinks you can have everything for free", er no.
Many of those 40% do not belive this will be the land of milk and honey if we elect Corbyn but know something has to change. They are seeing first hand how the cuts are effecting services, teachers and teaching assistants having no paper, NHS staff feeling huge cuts to social care budgets, pharmacies seeing the government closing down pharmacies so that rural communities won't be able to access them etc.
These people don't think everything will change overnight in fact they are sure they won't, but they do believe *something* has to change. A lot like LEAVE voters who knew we couldn't just carry on as we were.
SO's anecdote is pertinent here, 2 teaching assistants losing their jobs and the Headteacher taking a pay cut. This is happening across the country. People accepted that we needed austerity at first, but after 7 years they have understandbly become weary.
But keep thinking it's all about "people wanting a load of free stuff without paying for it", but don't be shocked when we end up with Abbott as Home Secretary *shudders*.
Prehaps if the Tories learn some lessons they can avoid a humiliating defeat when the election comes. Prehaps.
That will finally sink the party full stop. Rumours Vera Hobhouse could stand. Much better choice.
We're still all paying the price for the last time Labour were in power.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/southern-rail-drivers-reject-75000-pay-deal-trigger-overtime/
Now is the time to discuss the Second Punic War. Or the Azerbaijan Grand Prix. All else is nonsense.
[Cable down to 2.5 on Ladbrokes. Was 4 yesterday, I think].
But the new settlement is working well. Intrusive hunt saboteurs and politically motivated prosecutions are an issue, so I could see a reform bill to tidy up some loose edges and provide a safe harbour provision. But not a priority.
More than 50% of people in the EU and in the Uk are protectionist - because they don't understand how lack of competition is like communism and harmful to the economy in the long term.
If you are good enough you are young enough.
He would be a bizarre choice.
I'm looking forward to the first "Brexit free trade will be bad for Africa" story...
Of course, they were both miles better than Vince Cable.
It is the most bonkers thing I have read on here in quite some time.
Why? Because Labour would need a 2/3 majority, which they could only achieve with Tories voting in favour, which the Tories wouldn't. The Tories would say "Fine - just hand back over to us". Alternatively they could no-confidence themselves, but while chatterers have speculated about that as an option, it would make Labour look absurd - especially with most of the media Tory - and would be very unlikely. As for the Tories, all they would need to do is rope their loyalist pals into voting for a MONC and then say "No, actually, we can't form a government - we want a GE". Governing when you can't call a GE but your opponents can is the bane of any minority government, of course.
The colour and gender of those elected is down to the electorate not the party.
I'm not sure whether they'd be welcome here, but they are at the following links:
Sun
Daily Mail
Daily Mirror.
When I go shooting, we have 5-6 mates, walking around a few fields in the sun. Not really fussed if we hit anything or not. And all the birds get eaten afterwards.
Mr. Horse, welcome to pb.com. Doubt it'd play that way. Corbyn would write cheques for free unicorns and the Conservatives would vote it down. He'd then challenge them to an election and realpolitik would force them to accept.
The Labour party introduced tuition fees. University could be paid for by tyhe taxpayer when only 5% went to Uni, as in my day. Now over 40% go to uni they should expect to pay out of future earnings once they reach a certain level.
I bloody well hope not. The party has to go beyond ultra-remain, and Lamb is the only man to do that I think.
1. Overall, the amount of expenditure on schooling itself will reduce, yet overall the state may not even be saving any money despite the cuts in state schools. So, cuts without even the rationale of being necessary to improve the public finances.
2. Those savings are instead being frittered away by making the parents of those who chose to send their children there considerably better off. Cuts for the many to line the pockets of the few who could afford private school fees.
3. It's a huge assumption that admissions will change and very clearly a wrong one from what I can see. It will remain an elite school. At best, perhaps slightly less elite than previously if we're lucky and a few more kids get the opportunity to go there who wouldn't, but it will only be a few. It will be luck as the state has no control over admissions policies in free schools.
Although I admit tone and empathy are underrated political skills within the party.
If you hate people for it, you really hate yourself. Which actually tells me something about you as an individual.
I really, really don't want to see PM Corbyn. It would ruin this country.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
In the event of a snap election, I don't think the age thing is too much of an issue for Cable - no-one will be voting for him as PM, so what does it actually matter how old he is? Old is old, he will simply be seen as equally pale and stale as May and Corbyn. If the US can elect 70 year Trump or Clinton, I don't see his age being a barrier.
Has Lamb declared yet?
Don't see them disappearing anytime soon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_passport
It's like the antithesis of modern Labour and Conservative parties. Instead of no good leaders, there are too many, all bold, ruthless, brave, sly and all battling or allying with one another to take over or carve a piece from the territory Alexander conquered.
[As an aside, that territory extended from Albania and Egyp in the west, to the eastern border of modern day Pakistan. Includes Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, an absolutely massive area. And Alexander apparently had plans to conquer west after he returned home].
Productivity has stalled in the UK over the last decade. It needs to improve in both the public sector and the private sector.
The internet, artifial intelligence and a host of other technical advances provides a mass of opportunities to improve productivity. Teaching is due for a step change in productivity.
But.
I am genuinely unsure about the best way to kill them (foxes and rats). Or rather I don't think there are any 'good' ways, only 'least bad' ways.
I won't use poisons because I worry about other animals eating it or eating the dead fox and so dying (we have red kites around which are basically British vultures).
I won't use snares because they are definitely cruel and again you risk other animals.
That leaves shooting or hunting with dogs. I am afraid I am unconvinced about the arguments in favour of hunting with dogs.
Two reasons for this.
Firstly the idea that being ripped apart by dogs is a 'humane' end just doesn't convince me at all. I am pretty sure if you asked any human how they would like to die then being ripped apart by dogs would not be anywhere near the top of their list.
Secondly we do know that hunts promote foxes on the land they hunt to allow them prey. If I want to get rid of a pest then the last thing I should be doing is breeding more of them.
So for me it comes down to shooting as the best of a bad lot. It is certainly not perfect and I have seen more than my fair share of injured foxes over the years where morons have taken pot shots or where even a good shot has missed. But it still strikes me as the most effective, honest and humane way of dealing with pests. The downside is you need to be willing to put in the time both to ensure you are a good enough shot and to stake out the ground to await the fox coming to you.
It seems to me that the UK government should bite Verhofstadt's hand off to get this associate citizenship thing through. It would at a stroke placate millions of angry remainers. It would therefore give them more cover to get away with a harder brexit with much less opposition.
We could charge extra for metallic.