Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions
terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times
That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.
I can't remember which firm it was, but I saw one restriction which was something like five times the original deposit.
What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.
There's nothing wrong with the proposals; the problem is with the politics. As RichardN says, we could probably have got somewhere near these - or somewhere near where we'd end up starting with these proposals - by accepting the EU document subject to specific reservations. Instead, she's marched her troops up the hill and will look silly when she makes concessions (or when she fails to get anywhere if she's not prepared to negotiate).
It only looks silly to people following closely. The BBC didn't point out on the radio news earlier that May's offer was less generous than the EU's proposals. They just repeated her line.
It's as dyedwoolie said at the end of the previous thread. This is all for domestic consumption, to create the impression of being generous, and to cast the EU as being unreasonable in the eyes of the British public.
This then makes it possible for her to walk away with no deal and to blame the EU for it, if she feels it is necessary to do so.
But the EU is perfectly entitled to 'walk away' from any deal, proposal or suggestion - because the EU did not leave us, we left the EU. What's more, we left it without preconditions. So if the EU decided to tell us to just go - no arrangements, no deals, no nuffink - it would be perfectly within its rights.
Of course it won't do any such thing because it wouldn't be in its own best interests and for the most part its leaders are reasonable people. But we can have absolutely no complaints about what is offered us, for the simple reason we left without so much as 'by your leave'.
The politics of all this is therefore a bit of a pretend game, which on the UK comprises largely of placing all blame on the beastly Europeans, as indicated.
Yep - the election just fought was all about giving the Tories a mandate to blame the EU27 for either a bad deal or no deal. The problem is that they did not get the mandate. May has handled things abysmally - and the Tories have let her do it.
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
Do you have a link for that? Not finding it in a quick skim around the internet. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of a Jaguar is UK made.
95% of JLR products come with a ZF gearbox which is one of the most expensive components in it.
they also used to come with BMW engines
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
Depends on the deposit method. If it's bank transfer their costs are minimal. Credit card, skrill, etc ..... they've paid your deposit costs generally.
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
Given what the polls were like at the start of the most recent election, *that* one offered the chance to take the Lib Dems out for good. For all the reasons given in Alastair's article, there's sod all chance of those conditions returning.
I don't think the premise is correct, either. The LDs vote share increased in:
Interesting to note that two of the three vote share increases happened in Leave voting seats. Yet all five seats which voted Remain saw the LD vote share fall.
Make of that what you will
The article was mainly a call-to-arms to get active and start delivering leaflets in these LD seats - so can probably be taken with a pinch of salt.
Also, a more interesting question is "where was the swing against the LDs more than the national average"? And the answer to that is probably just Ceredigion and Westmoreland & Lonsdale.
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
Do you have a link for that? Not finding it in a quick skim around the internet. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of a Jaguar is UK made.
95% of JLR products come with a ZF gearbox which is one of the most expensive components in it.
they also used to come with BMW engines
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
If we are back to British made engines (like the 1970/80s) does that mean we should start expecting them to cut out on rainy days and after driving through puddles?
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
The article was mainly a call-to-arms to get active and start delivering leaflets in these LD seats - so can probably be taken with a pinch of salt.
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, Labour is simply the Opposition, the Lib Dems are the enemy. A large LD advance in Conservative areas is an existential threat to the Conservatives in a way a simple Labour advance isn't.
What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.
There's nothing wrong with the proposals; the problem is with the politics. As RichardN says, we could probably have got somewhere near these - or somewhere near where we'd end up starting with these proposals - by accepting the EU document subject to specific reservations. Instead, she's marched her troops up the hill and will look silly when she makes concessions (or when she fails to get anywhere if she's not prepared to negotiate).
It only looks silly to people following closely. The BBC didn't point out on the radio news earlier that May's offer was less generous than the EU's proposals. They just repeated her line.
It's as dyedwoolie said at the end of the previous thread. This is all for domestic consumption, to create the impression of being generous, and to cast the EU as being unreasonable in the eyes of the British public.
This then makes it possible for her to walk away with no deal and to blame the EU for it, if she feels it is necessary to do so.
But the EU is perfectly entitled to 'walk away' from any deal, proposal or suggestion - because the EU did not leave us, we left the EU. What's more, we left it without preconditions. So if the EU decided to tell us to just go - no arrangements, no deals, no nuffink - it would be perfectly within its rights.
Of course it won't do any such thing because it wouldn't be in its own best interests and for the most part its leaders are reasonable people. But we can have absolutely no complaints about what is offered us, for the simple reason we left without so much as 'by your leave'.
The politics of all this is therefore a bit of a pretend game, which on the UK comprises largely of placing all blame on the beastly Europeans, as indicated.
Yep - the election just fought was all about giving the Tories a mandate to blame the EU27 for either a bad deal or no deal. The problem is that they did not get the mandate. May has handled things abysmally - and the Tories have let her do it.
Labour campaigned on laving the single market as well. And whatever you say is the mood of the Labour party they have been unable to shift Corbyn one iota so far, mules are humbled by his stubborness.
I have come to the conclusion that all we can do is sit here and watch the car crash and listen to Leavers going about the EU taking EU stuff back inside the post-Brexit EU Bloc"They cannot do that! Somebody stop them! How dare they! and variations thereof.
And how have you come to that conclusion, pray tell?
From reading this place.
Interesting. I haven't got that impression at all. Except, as usual, from continuity Remainers attributing to Leavers opinions they don't have, as usual...
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
Do you have a link for that? Not finding it in a quick skim around the internet. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of a Jaguar is UK made.
95% of JLR products come with a ZF gearbox which is one of the most expensive components in it.
they also used to come with BMW engines
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
If we are back to British made engines (like the 1970/80s) does that mean we should start expecting them to cut out on rainy days and after driving through puddles?
you could always stick with a German diesel and poison your children
I have come to the conclusion that all we can do is sit here and watch the car crash and listen to Leavers going about the EU taking EU stuff back inside the post-Brexit EU Bloc"They cannot do that! Somebody stop them! How dare they! and variations thereof.
And how have you come to that conclusion, pray tell?
From reading this place.
Interesting. I haven't got that impression at all. Except, as usual, from continuity Remainers attributing to Leavers opinions they don't have, as usual...
Ok. I am content to wait and see. Another few months should see me Brexit-proof no matter how it turns out.
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
shows how little you undestand JLR sourcing
a mini or a bentley sure, but JLR has more home grown suppliers than German transplants
do keep up
"Britain's car industry may never be able to boost the level of local content to over half in its cars to meet the standards set in some bilateral trade agreements, the chief executive of the country's biggest carmaker Jaguar Land Rover told Reuters."
well of ourse it wont but the parts wont all be coming in from Germany or indeed the EU for that matter
about 25% of the value of a car these days is electronics, not something Europe excels at. Even German cars arent all made in Germany.
The world's biggest producer of semiconductors for the auto industry is Infineon, which is German. The second largest is NXP which is Dutch. Third is Texas Instruments (US).
I struggle to believe that RCS, you havent got a single Far eastern supplier on that list. These days China alone exceeds all car production in Europe.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
Trying to get my head around May's proposal on EU citizens - am I right in thinking the grant of citizenship applies only to those EU citizens living "legally" within the UK ?
What does "legally" mean ? Under Freedom of Movement, any EU citizen has the right to reside in another EU country so all EU citizens would, by definition, be here legally so that's a ludicrous caveat.
Is she talking only about those working and paying taxes within the UK ? There are, I would imagine, a number of EU citizens who work in the UK in the black economy and live solely on a cash basis. There are also others presumably who don't work at all and exist either through the largesse of others or criminality of one form or another. Are they included or excluded ?
I find the superficiality of her proposal curious and those concerned about immigration and the impact of migration from the EU may wonder what kind of Brexit is being proposed and the degree to which meaningful immigration control is to be pursued.
What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.
There's nothing wrong with the proposals; the problem is with the politics. As RichardN says, we could probably have got somewhere near these - or somewhere near where we'd end up starting with these proposals - by accepting the EU document subject to specific reservations. Instead, she's marched her troops up the hill and will look silly when she makes concessions (or when she fails to get anywhere if she's not prepared to negotiate).
It only looks silly to people following closely. The BBC didn't point out on the radio news earlier that May's offer was less generous than the EU's proposals. They just repeated her line.
It's as dyedwoolie said at the end of the previous thread. This is all for domestic consumption, to create the impression of being generous, and to cast the EU as being unreasonable in the eyes of the British public.
This then makes it possible for her to walk away with no deal and to blame the EU for it, if she feels it is necessary to do so.
But the EU is perfectly entitled to 'walk away' from any deal, proposal or suggestion - because the EU did not leave us, we left the EU. What's more, we left it without preconditions. So if the EU decided to tell us to just go - no arrangements, no deals, no nuffink - it would be perfectly within its rights.
Of course it won't do any such thing because it wouldn't be in its own best interests and for the most part its leaders are reasonable people. But we can have absolutely no complaints about what is offered us, for the simple reason we left without so much as 'by your leave'.
The politics of all this is therefore a bit of a pretend game, which on the UK comprises largely of placing all blame on the beastly Europeans, as indicated.
Yep - the election just fought was all about giving the Tories a mandate to blame the EU27 for either a bad deal or no deal. The problem is that they did not get the mandate. May has handled things abysmally - and the Tories have let her do it.
Labour campaigned on laving the single market as well. And whatever you say is the mood of the Labour party they have been unable to shift Corbyn one iota so far, mules are humbled by his stubborness.
Labour campaigned on having its cake and eating it, but it isn't in Government, and it didn't create the mess.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
Do you have a link for that? Not finding it in a quick skim around the internet. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of a Jaguar is UK made.
95% of JLR products come with a ZF gearbox which is one of the most expensive components in it.
they also used to come with BMW engines
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
If we are back to British made engines (like the 1970/80s) does that mean we should start expecting them to cut out on rainy days and after driving through puddles?
you could always stick with a German diesel and poison your children
Ah yes, the EU's brilliant emission testing regime.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
Trying to get my head around May's proposal on EU citizens - am I right in thinking the grant of citizenship applies only to those EU citizens living "legally" within the UK ?
What does "legally" mean ? Under Freedom of Movement, any EU citizen has the right to reside in another EU country so all EU citizens would, by definition, be here legally so that's a ludicrous caveat.
Is she talking only about those working and paying taxes within the UK ? There are, I would imagine, a number of EU citizens who work in the UK in the black economy and live solely on a cash basis. There are also others presumably who don't work at all and exist either through the largesse of others or criminality of one form or another. Are they included or excluded ?
I find the superficiality of her proposal curious and those concerned about immigration and the impact of migration from the EU may wonder what kind of Brexit is being proposed and the degree to which meaningful immigration control is to be pursued.
At a minimum it would exclude people who had been subject to a deportation order because of some criminal offence.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
she wouldnt understand the price of fish
but she is an elected representative, the kind of senior politician who would end up on a committee of experts
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
Are you suggesting Diane Abbott's opinion is worth so much more than mine or Alan's?
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
Do you have a link for that? Not finding it in a quick skim around the internet. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of a Jaguar is UK made.
95% of JLR products come with a ZF gearbox which is one of the most expensive components in it.
they also used to come with BMW engines
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
If we are back to British made engines (like the 1970/80s) does that mean we should start expecting them to cut out on rainy days and after driving through puddles?
you could always stick with a German diesel and poison your children
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
shows how little you undestand JLR sourcing
a mini or a bentley sure, but JLR has more home grown suppliers than German transplants
do keep up
Nope - the MD of JLR on the wireless today said there was a large component part which was imported. He also said they weren't going to move and they have been selling a ton of cars this year.
That said, we are talking a tier of car (£35-100,000) that cannot really be compared with a £25k BMW so I'm not sure how much of a substitute they are.
rolls eyes
youve read an article, yet youve never sold a programme to JLR or any other vehicle mnufacturer, or met an automoive buyer but are suddenly an expert in automotive sourcing
thats fine I'll take it that youre happy to listen to my views on banking
Brexit's the best thing that every happened to the City you know
Not me guv, that fount of all knowledge, You & Yours today.
The Operations Director of JLR. Source extensively from Europe. Building brand new plant in Slovakia... "It is a factor" (higher import prices via tariffs). Didn't deny would have an effect on price.
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
shows how little you undestand JLR sourcing
a mini or a bentley sure, but JLR has more home grown suppliers than German transplants
do keep up
"Britain's car industry may never be able to boost the level of local content to over half in its cars to meet the standards set in some bilateral trade agreements, the chief executive of the country's biggest carmaker Jaguar Land Rover told Reuters."
well of ourse it wont but the parts wont all be coming in from Germany or indeed the EU for that matter
about 25% of the value of a car these days is electronics, not something Europe excels at. Even German cars arent all made in Germany.
The world's biggest producer of semiconductors for the auto industry is Infineon, which is German. The second largest is NXP which is Dutch. Third is Texas Instruments (US).
I struggle to believe that RCS, you havent got a single Far eastern supplier on that list. These days China alone exceeds all car production in Europe.
Chinese car companies buy European chips. Here's the table from IHS:
European companies are first, third, fourth, sixth and tenth. It's an area where the Europeans are very strong.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
Are you suggesting Diane Abbott's opinion is worth so much more than mine or Alan's?
Just bewildered by the bizarre allusion, Philip.
By the way, I settled our bet. Did u get my email?
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
Are you suggesting Diane Abbott's opinion is worth so much more than mine or Alan's?
Just bewildered by the bizarre allusion, Philip.
By the way, I settled our bet. Did u get my email?
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
shows how little you undestand JLR sourcing
a mini or a bentley sure, but JLR has more home grown suppliers than German transplants
do keep up
Nope - the MD of JLR on the wireless today said there was a large component part which was imported. He also said they weren't going to move and they have been selling a ton of cars this year.
That said, we are talking a tier of car (£35-100,000) that cannot really be compared with a £25k BMW so I'm not sure how much of a substitute they are.
rolls eyes
youve read an article, yet youve never sold a programme to JLR or any other vehicle mnufacturer, or met an automoive buyer but are suddenly an expert in automotive sourcing
thats fine I'll take it that youre happy to listen to my views on banking
Brexit's the best thing that every happened to the City you know
Not me guv, that fount of all knowledge, You & Yours today.
The Operations Director of JLR. Source extensively from Europe. Building brand new plant in Slovakia... "It is a factor" (higher import prices via tariffs). Didn't deny would have an effect on price.
11mins 40 secs
chortle
theyve been building that plant since before Brexit
if anything the exchange rate probably has buggered up all their cash flows
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
she wouldnt understand the price of fish
but she is an elected representative, the kind of senior politician who would end up on a committee of experts
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Do I have to bring out my Ted Heath quotes again? The debate in the 70s was very open and transparent. It was really only in the 90s that the dissembling began.
Open & transparent it was not, I'm afraid. Perhaps we forget how limited our access to information was in those days. We couldn't cross-check what the same people were saying in different places.
I was one of those who voted in favour of joining/remaining in the EU in the 1970s, and I remember saying to anyone who would listen that I would have voted in favour even if those who warned us it was a political project aimed at eventual union were correct, whereas the government were assuring us those people were wrong.
Over the years, I changed my mind.
(Good afternoon, everyone. I'm still hiding behind the sofa where politics is concerned.)
Not really, since 50% of a Jag comes in a box from Germany.
shows how little you undestand JLR sourcing
a mini or a bentley sure, but JLR has more home grown suppliers than German transplants
do keep up
"Britain's car industry may never be able to boost the level of local content to over half in its cars to meet the standards set in some bilateral trade agreements, the chief executive of the country's biggest carmaker Jaguar Land Rover told Reuters."
well of ourse it wont but the parts wont all be coming in from Germany or indeed the EU for that matter
about 25% of the value of a car these days is electronics, not something Europe excels at. Even German cars arent all made in Germany.
The world's biggest producer of semiconductors for the auto industry is Infineon, which is German. The second largest is NXP which is Dutch. Third is Texas Instruments (US).
I struggle to believe that RCS, you havent got a single Far eastern supplier on that list. These days China alone exceeds all car production in Europe.
Chinese car companies buy European chips. Here's the table from IHS:
European companies are first, third, fourth, sixth and tenth. It's an area where the Europeans are very strong.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Do I have to bring out my Ted Heath quotes again? The debate in the 70s was very open and transparent. It was really only in the 90s that the dissembling began.
Open & transparent it was not, I'm afraid. Perhaps we forget how limited our access to information was in those days. We couldn't cross-check what the same people were saying in different places.
I was one of those who voted in favour of joining/remaining in the EU in the 1970s, and I remember saying to anyone who would listen that I would have voted in favour even if those who warned us it was a political project aimed at eventual union were correct, whereas the government were assuring us those people were wrong.
Over the years, I changed my mind.
(Good afternoon, everyone. I'm still hiding behind the sofa where politics is concerned.)
Correct, Anne. It was aways a political project aimed at eventual Union. The failure to acknowledge that and make it clear to member states and their electorates was dishonest and, in the end I think, became a source of great difficulty for the project. Brexiteers certainly have the moral high ground in this matter, if no other.
Of course the deceptions by Brexiteers are another matter, but two wrongs never will make a right.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
So you appoint your representatives - MPs in this case - and they say 'Oooh, too difficult for us. You decide.'
Really?
lots of countries do it,
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
What's Diane Abbott got to do with the price of fish, ffs?
she wouldnt understand the price of fish
but she is an elected representative, the kind of senior politician who would end up on a committee of experts
So?
So yourself
I'm lost where youre going with this except to say people shouldnt have votes
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
That is what happened. Thanks to the good offices of Gina Miller we were told by the courts that the referendum was only advisory and parliament would have to vote on it. Parliament passed The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill by 498 to 114.
Mr German, who had accused his opponents of using his conviction as a "political weapon", said at the time: "I now look forward to being able to spend my time more productively in building both the Socialist Party and TUSC and assisting in the process of defending Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party against the co-ordinated attacks of the Tories, the Blairites and the right wing in the Labour Party."
Trying to get my head around May's proposal on EU citizens - am I right in thinking the grant of citizenship applies only to those EU citizens living "legally" within the UK ?
What does "legally" mean ? Under Freedom of Movement, any EU citizen has the right to reside in another EU country so all EU citizens would, by definition, be here legally so that's a ludicrous caveat.
"EU nationals have rights under the various Treaties which set up the European Union. One of these is the right to live and work in any of the other Member States of the union. Consequently, EU nationals are not given individual leave to enter the United Kingdom. This is because they have a right of entry and residence under European Union law as long as they are coming here in the exercise of a Treaty right. This includes the right to take or seek employment or to set up business. Student and self-sufficient persons (e.g. retired persons) also have right to entry and residence in a non-economic capacity." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374616/TreatyRightsPolicy.pdf
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit w always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.
Of course it won't do any such thing because it wouldn't be in its own best interests and for the most part its leaders are reasonable people. But we can have absolutely no complaints about what is offered us, for the simple reason we left without so much as 'by your leave'.
The politics of all this is therefore a bit of a pretend game, which on the UK comprises largely of placing all blame on the beastly Europeans, as indicated.
Yep - the election just fought was all about giving the Tories a mandate to blame the EU27 for either a bad deal or no deal. The problem is that they did not get the mandate. May has handled things abysmally - and the Tories have let her do it.
Labour campaigned on laving the single market as well. And whatever you say is the mood of the Labour party they have been unable to shift Corbyn one iota so far, mules are humbled by his stubborness.
Labour campaigned on having its cake and eating it, but it isn't in Government, and it didn't create the mess.
those MP's stood on the manifesto and won election on it.
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit w always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
you consult the people, they have to live with the decision
@patrickwintour: British people were "endlessly lied to and deceived" in last year's Brexit referendum German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"endlessly lied to and deceived"
sounds like the history of our time in the EU
Of course there were lies and deceptions on both sides, but was it sensible to ask the electorate to make a decision based on them, and on a subject which even the best informed and most judicious would have found exceptionally difficult?
chortle
you mean we should not trust the voters and hand everything over to s self appointed group of experts ?
tht would work well, experts havent been very good with expertise recently
That's right, Alanbrooke, experts are often wrong. So what do you do? Do you ask the inexpert, the man down the pub, the lunatic in the asylum?
On a difficult subject like the EU you would expect a variety of opinion at all levels, from the most expert to the lay opinion. In this case, the bulk of 'expert' opinion suggested Brexit would be a mistake. This was kind of reflected in the fact the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote Remain. Of course it could turn out that the layman was right all along although early indications are otherwise. On the whole though, I think it is sensible to refer difficult matters like these to people who are best equiped to deal with them. And of course this being a democracy we can always change and challenge our representatives if we think they are selling us short. It's not a perfect system, but on the whole it works reasonably well.
What do you suggest instead?
That is what happened. Thanks to the good offices of Gina Miller we were told by the courts that the referendum was only advisory and parliament would have to vote on it. Parliament passed The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill by 498 to 114.
A majority of MPs was against Brexit, but Parliament shirked its responsibilities and called a referendum.
(Actually, that's the way it is generally depicted, but shrewd political pundits, like what you get here on PB.com, know perfectly well it was a wheeze by Cameron to deal with his Eurosceptic wing which he was otherwise unable to control, but never mind - result is the same either way.)
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody.
He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house...
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody. He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house... Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
All about greedy property developers against the little man.
Timely release but one for PB Tories to avoid.
The name alone gives it away. Millionaire property owners rail against would-be millionaire property developers. Have I got that right?
I remember the real bloke whose story this is supposed to be. He was, of course, nothing like the person portrayed in the film and his story is nothing like it either. The real character won the right to live in a section of garden of a big house that bordered the Heath just outside Kenwood. He did that almost until he died and was a cantankerous old sod who was not much given to conversation. He would have told Diane Keaton to bugger off if she had come knocking!
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody. He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house... Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
Mrs May? And Jeremy Corbyn...?
Obviously it is where their phones are rather than them but with young teenagers that is a distinction without a difference. I think it is an astonishing intrusion of privacy without express consent. I am really surprised it is even legal.
Just calculated a fairly remarkable stat. The Lib Dems won only 3768 votes per candidate in 2017. The last time that they, or one of their predecessor parties / alliances received fewer votes per candidate was in 1886, under a much more restrictive franchise - though they still took top-side of 3900 per candidate under that same franchise from 1892-1910(Dec).
While the Liberal Party did receive (far) fewer votes in the 1950s, failing to even reach 1m on two occasions, that was because they only stood in a fraction of seats (109 in 1951 and 110 in 1955).
We should be cheered and comforted to know that, having just popped over to arrse to see what's occurring, the very same discussions that we are having here on PB are being replicated there.
I imagine members of a chatroom dedicated to fans of 18th century Spode saucers are, as we speak, vigorously debating whether the LDs will retake Southport at the next GE.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
in 20 years time all the Corbynistas might vote us back in thats the joy of democracy things change, but peacefully
How about they do so tomorrow? And the next day they vote us all out again. In - out - in out - shake it all about. It's the Hokey Cokey Government!
the UK is rather sparing with its referenda weve had 2 EU referenda in the last 42 years but if you dont agree with governments changing maybe we should just have Mrs May as our lifetime dictator and not bother with an election in 2022
That was the cunning plan at the beginning of this month, when we had a general election. Fortunately, the country said otherwise.
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody. He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house... Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
Mrs May? And Jeremy Corbyn...?
Obviously it is where their phones are rather than them but with young teenagers that is a distinction without a difference. I think it is an astonishing intrusion of privacy without express consent. I am really surprised it is even legal.
Everyones tracking phone locations - how do you think Google's traffic monitoring is so accurate? The same tech will also tell you how busy an individual shop is on Oxford Street.
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody. He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house... Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
Mrs May? And Jeremy Corbyn...?
Obviously it is where their phones are rather than them but with young teenagers that is a distinction without a difference. I think it is an astonishing intrusion of privacy without express consent. I am really surprised it is even legal.
Everyones tracking phone locations - how do you think Google's traffic monitoring is so accurate? The same tech will also tell you how busy an individual shop is on Oxford Street.
Yes but they are not sharing it with everyone else on that network. Are they?
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
They don't have to, do they? Looks like there's a lot of low-hanging fruit now.
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody. He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house... Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
Mrs May? And Jeremy Corbyn...?
Obviously it is where their phones are rather than them but with young teenagers that is a distinction without a difference. I think it is an astonishing intrusion of privacy without express consent. I am really surprised it is even legal.
Everyones tracking phone locations - how do you think Google's traffic monitoring is so accurate? The same tech will also tell you how busy an individual shop is on Oxford Street.
There's quite a difference between anonymised collection for the public good (e.g. traffic) and passing your current location (without your permission) onto people you just happen to have friended on an internet service.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
They don't have to, do they? Looks like there's a lot of low-hanging fruit now.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
Depends if the Tories bother to turn up and run a campaign, unlike during the recent GE.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
Depends if the Tories bother to turn up and run a campaign, unlike during the recent GE.
I think Google's cutting edge AI still has a way to go. YouTube keeps suggesting I watch videos that tell me how wonderful Jeremy Corbyn is...
Nah, it's so advanced that it knows that you'll be a signed-up Corbynista in a few months.
Keep an eye out for the changes: *) An urge to write 'May is a murderer' on a piece of large card (preferably with a speeling mistake); *) Foaming at the mouth whenever the Daily Mail is mentioned; *) You start cutting out pictures of Corbyn and paste them onto the ceiling above your bed. *) You develop an odd fondness for Owen Jones.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
Got it. Thanks Andy, it's a brilliant piece of work.
For Labour's share to go up by at least 10 percentage points in 300 constituencies was a spectacular performance. But I can't help wondering whether it'll be difficult for the party to keep that sort of momentum up at the next election.
They don't have to, do they? Looks like there's a lot of low-hanging fruit now.
Indeed. Capital flight arrangements to 'stand by'.
O/T my son is on snapchat. They have just done an update by which you are told exactly where anyone you are linked in the world is. In real time. Without asking anybody.
He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house...
Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
You can also set it so that any Snapchat user can find you !
Like most of the participants in this site I'm playing out lots of possible political scenarios in my head. In many Labour do not win the next election. In many they do. I'm also finding that their subjective plausibility is varying according to my mood and the latest micro-events. Uncertainty means uncertainty.
"EU nationals have rights under the various Treaties which set up the European Union. One of these is the right to live and work in any of the other Member States of the union. Consequently, EU nationals are not given individual leave to enter the United Kingdom. This is because they have a right of entry and residence under European Union law as long as they are coming here in the exercise of a Treaty right. This includes the right to take or seek employment or to set up business. Student and self-sufficient persons (e.g. retired persons) also have right to entry and residence in a non-economic capacity." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374616/TreatyRightsPolicy.pdf
Thank you, Chris. That seems to suggest even if you don't have a job you can come here and say you're looking for work even if you fund your life through criminality or alternatively take cash-in-hand work and not contribute taxes and Nat Ins to the UK.
I don't see that what May is proposing is very different from this so those concerned aboujt immigration might wonder what is going on.
If May wants this, agreement to the Single Market must be on the agenda sice it reads like Freedom of Movement to all intents and purposes.
In case anyone missed it yesterday and is interested, these are the percentage changes by constituency (9 sheets). I got the data directly from the official council websites rather than using any secondary sources:
For the record, I would sell both Tories and Labour most seats on Betfair. There has to be a non-zero chance of a discontinuity happening in the UK, in the same way that it happened in Greece and France, and almost happened in Spain.
We have a very rocky couple of years ahead of us, and the possibility of either a UKIP revival, if Brexit is seen to have been betrayed, or another grouping appearing in the event of us having a horrible recession and both Tories and Labour being tainted.
For the record, I would sell both Tories and Labour most seats on Betfair. There has to be a non-zero chance of a discontinuity happening in the UK, in the same way that it happened in Greece and France, and almost happened in Spain.
We have a very rocky couple of years ahead of us, and the possibility of either a UKIP revival, if Brexit is seen to have been betrayed, or another grouping appearing in the event of us having a horrible recession and both Tories and Labour being tainted.
If Labour had gone backwards then there would be a significantly non-zero chance of an SDP redux or Lib Dem revival but I don't see it as being likely now that Labour have gone forwards.
Mr. Thompson, I agree. The PLP are using the less-shit-than-anticipated result for Corbyn, partly occurring due to some of them say they'd never back him as PM, to bottle out of doing what must be done.
Now most of them are lining up behind the far left.
For the record, I would sell both Tories and Labour most seats on Betfair. There has to be a non-zero chance of a discontinuity happening in the UK, in the same way that it happened in Greece and France, and almost happened in Spain.
We have a very rocky couple of years ahead of us, and the possibility of either a UKIP revival, if Brexit is seen to have been betrayed, or another grouping appearing in the event of us having a horrible recession and both Tories and Labour being tainted.
If Labour had gone backwards then there would be a significantly non-zero chance of an SDP redux or Lib Dem revival but I don't see it as being likely now that Labour have gone forwards.
My pessimism on the UK economy is long standing (and predates the Brexit vote). To bring our balance of payments into line requires an increase in our savings rate comparable to what happened in Spain between 2008 and 2011. Like it or not, that will be blamed on the incumbent government (and Brexit).
Now, is it likely that we have an economic slowdown that serious? Probably not. But it's by no means inconceivable. I'd put a Spain 2008-2011 severity downturn as a 15-25% probability. Such a slowdown probably has a one in five chance of seeing a new political force arise with the same impact as EM, Syriza, Podemos or Five Star. So shall we say a 3-5% chance of something happening, and I can "buy" at sub 2%. It's a value bet, especially as there is a chance that UKIP returns to relevence if Brexit is betrayed in some way.
Comments
JLR have just built a massive factory in Wolverhampton and now do all their own engines locally
https://twitter.com/bfbsscotland/status/878242558614396928
Really?
but you could always rely on Diane Abbott if you prefer
Trying to get my head around May's proposal on EU citizens - am I right in thinking the grant of citizenship applies only to those EU citizens living "legally" within the UK ?
What does "legally" mean ? Under Freedom of Movement, any EU citizen has the right to reside in another EU country so all EU citizens would, by definition, be here legally so that's a ludicrous caveat.
Is she talking only about those working and paying taxes within the UK ? There are, I would imagine, a number of EU citizens who work in the UK in the black economy and live solely on a cash basis. There are also others presumably who don't work at all and exist either through the largesse of others or criminality of one form or another. Are they included or excluded ?
I find the superficiality of her proposal curious and those concerned about immigration and the impact of migration from the EU may wonder what kind of Brexit is being proposed and the degree to which meaningful immigration control is to be pursued.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-countries-democracy-brexit-vote-article-50-second-referendum-a7629636.html
https://www.ft.com/content/8ba08428-9554-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582?mhq5j=e2
in 20 years time all the Corbynistas might vote us back in
thats the joy of democracy things change, but peacefully
but she is an elected representative, the kind of senior politician who would end up on a committee of experts
The Operations Director of JLR. Source extensively from Europe. Building brand new plant in Slovakia... "It is a factor" (higher import prices via tariffs). Didn't deny would have an effect on price.
11mins 40 secs
European companies are first, third, fourth, sixth and tenth. It's an area where the Europeans are very strong.
Listening to a Radio 2 playlist.
Enjoying it enormously.
God I am getting old.
By the way, I settled our bet. Did u get my email?
weve had 2 EU referenda in the last 42 years
but if you dont agree with governments changing maybe we should just have Mrs May as our lifetime dictator and not bother with an election in 2022
theyve been building that plant since before Brexit
if anything the exchange rate probably has buggered up all their cash flows
I was one of those who voted in favour of joining/remaining in the EU in the 1970s, and I remember saying to anyone who would listen that I would have voted in favour even if those who warned us it was a political project aimed at eventual union were correct, whereas the government were assuring us those people were wrong.
Over the years, I changed my mind.
(Good afternoon, everyone. I'm still hiding behind the sofa where politics is concerned.)
All about greedy property developers against the little man.
Timely release but one for PB Tories to avoid.
Of course the deceptions by Brexiteers are another matter, but two wrongs never will make a right.
Fixed it for you.
I'm lost where youre going with this except to say people shouldnt have votes
Mr German, who had accused his opponents of using his conviction as a "political weapon", said at the time: "I now look forward to being able to spend my time more productively in building both the Socialist Party and TUSC and assisting in the process of defending Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party against the co-ordinated attacks of the Tories, the Blairites and the right wing in the Labour Party."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/bbc-question-time-audience-member-kicked-show-david-dimbleby/
One of these is the right to live and work in any of the other Member States of the union.
Consequently, EU nationals are not given individual leave to enter the United Kingdom.
This is because they have a right of entry and residence under European Union law as
long as they are coming here in the exercise of a Treaty right. This includes the right to
take or seek employment or to set up business. Student and self-sufficient persons (e.g.
retired persons) also have right to entry and residence in a non-economic capacity."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374616/TreatyRightsPolicy.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/turkey-will-stop-teaching-evolution-schools-education-ministry/
(Actually, that's the way it is generally depicted, but shrewd political pundits, like what you get here on PB.com, know perfectly well it was a wheeze by Cameron to deal with his Eurosceptic wing which he was otherwise unable to control, but never mind - result is the same either way.)
He has now blocked himself but he knows where his pals are, whether they are in a car or not, if they are at home he can use google earth to look at the exterior of their house...
Who on earth thought this was a good idea?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UWhZhZlnNE6oVmg_n1ayf-TtV0brsoaA4NawWz_GI6k/edit#gid=0
While the Liberal Party did receive (far) fewer votes in the 1950s, failing to even reach 1m on two occasions, that was because they only stood in a fraction of seats (109 in 1951 and 110 in 1955).
I imagine members of a chatroom dedicated to fans of 18th century Spode saucers are, as we speak, vigorously debating whether the LDs will retake Southport at the next GE.
Another can of worms about to be opened? As if things aren't chaotic enough.
I rather like "island of stability", but I'm just trying to think of alternatives. How about Damocles' sword or meta-stability.
Are the Tories losing their ruthlessness? At a glance Corbyn seems to have an aura of coherence.
There's quite a difference between anonymised collection for the public good (e.g. traffic) and passing your current location (without your permission) onto people you just happen to have friended on an internet service.
Keep an eye out for the changes:
*) An urge to write 'May is a murderer' on a piece of large card (preferably with a speeling mistake);
*) Foaming at the mouth whenever the Daily Mail is mentioned;
*) You start cutting out pictures of Corbyn and paste them onto the ceiling above your bed.
*) You develop an odd fondness for Owen Jones.
I don't see that what May is proposing is very different from this so those concerned aboujt immigration might wonder what is going on.
If May wants this, agreement to the Single Market must be on the agenda sice it reads like Freedom of Movement to all intents and purposes.
So far, the Island of Stability has been hard to find. I fear the same is the case for our politics.
We have a very rocky couple of years ahead of us, and the possibility of either a UKIP revival, if Brexit is seen to have been betrayed, or another grouping appearing in the event of us having a horrible recession and both Tories and Labour being tainted.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/878229587024646144
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/878230487143129090
Now most of them are lining up behind the far left.
Now, is it likely that we have an economic slowdown that serious? Probably not. But it's by no means inconceivable. I'd put a Spain 2008-2011 severity downturn as a 15-25% probability. Such a slowdown probably has a one in five chance of seeing a new political force arise with the same impact as EM, Syriza, Podemos or Five Star. So shall we say a 3-5% chance of something happening, and I can "buy" at sub 2%. It's a value bet, especially as there is a chance that UKIP returns to relevence if Brexit is betrayed in some way.