Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
Ascribing opinions on any given issue to voters in a general election is a pretty futile exercise in mind reading.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
QED
Um no. I am on shift so definitely no alcohol for me. Take another slurp old boy.
Jesus you're sober and talking such bollocks that really is scary.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.
There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.
Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.
What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
Peter, we've had an election post the referendum. The people could have voted for the Liberal Democrats, who advocated staying in the EU. If the Liberal Democrats had swept to power under a "remain in the EU flag", then I would regard their mandate as superseding the referendum.
But that didn't happen. The people voted overwhelmingly for parties that wished to implement the EU referendum vote.
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
How about a majority of the people wot voted for them?
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
Ascribing opinions on any given issue to voters in a general election is a pretty futile exercise in mind reading.
Particularly in an Election where Brexit was hardly mentioned.
If anything was endorsed it would be the Dementia tax. If that can be ditched despite being a central plank in the winning manifesto, then why not junk other policies?
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
QED
Um no. I am on shift so definitely no alcohol for me. Take another slurp old boy.
Jesus you're sober and talking such bollocks that really is scary.
That's it. Just finish the glass then toddle off. Try not to wake anyone with your snoring and grumbling.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
Guess which book I am currently reading...
Catch-22?
Got it in one!
Great book! Although I keep promising myself that one day I am going to get a copy, cut it up, and read all the chapters in chronological order.
No don't do that. One of the beauties of the book is that the same tales are told by different speakers with different viewpoints, and opinions at different times. Thus can the same event carry more or less psychic signifcance. Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition. It is the fog of war writ large. If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
I see people extolling representative democracy over direct democracy here and I fail to understand why. The argument always seems to be mp's are better informed then I look at the topics they witter on about that I do know about such as encryption and realise they know absolutely nothing about it, fail to understand it and yet people want these cockwombles to legislate it
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
As I pointed out before the referendum: If it is economically impossible/impractical to Leave (as the Remainers keep pointing out), then we have already lost our sovereignty.
Que?
I could walk outside and throw £30 down the drain or give my bank account details to a fake eBay email asking for them or send £20,000 to a nice man in Nigeria who has promised me millions of quid in return.
All of my own volition. But of course all totally bonkers, or dimly idiotic which is I think the correct analogy you were searching for.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
Oh dear, Topping has been at the Port again.
Go to bed before you make a fool of yourself again.
QED
Um no. I am on shift so definitely no alcohol for me. Take another slurp old boy.
Jesus you're sober and talking such bollocks that really is scary.
That's it. Just finish the glass then toddle off. Try not to wake anyone with your snoring and grumbling.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
Amen to that, the drug problem we have is the biggest can being kicked down the road. The police try manfully to keep a lid on it but its impossible.
And no, I don't have the answer but I'd start with executing the peddlars of death known as dealers. They are the scum of the earth.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
The problem is that the great British public are far happier on the five a day of: Sugar, Fat, Salt, Alcohol and Sofa, than on the 5 a day that I would recommend.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
I'm ironing my Union Jack underpants right now
I hope you took them off first.
Brilliant!
My Sheffield Wednesday ones are brilliant.
They put themselves in the darkest part of my wardrobe.
Something to do with the Owls methinks.
Was thinking of getting some TM ones but apparently your balls could get caught. Or you may need to attend an EU court to retrieve them.
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
Ascribing opinions on any given issue to voters in a general election is a pretty futile exercise in mind reading.
The point being that our Remainer friends are claiming that a referendum is a bad way of making policy and we should instead use the system of Parliamentary Democracy we have in place to make these decisions. .
That system - as Robert pointed out - is based upon the parties stating before hand what their position is on the major issues of the day so as to allow the electorate to vote accordingly.
At the last election over 80% of the electorate voted for parties which said explicitly that the UK would leave the EU and moreover that we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. So in both the referendum and the General Election the electorate have made it very clear that their preference is for leaving. Unless of course you do not think that either form of vote is valid and have some other way of deciding what the public want?
I see people extolling representative democracy over direct democracy here and I fail to understand why. The argument always seems to be mp's are better informed then I look at the topics they witter on about that I do know about such as encryption and realise they know absolutely nothing about it, fail to understand it and yet people want these cockwombles to legislate it
This was maybe true in the past. The sheer pace of technological change since the mid-90's has left most senior politicians behind.
I felt a ittle sorry for her. It's a pity clowns like Dale think its clever asking a question a politician can't answer. It's just sixth form stuff. It's interesting to know Jeremy Hunt has changed his mind and would now vote Brexit. Exactly what I would have expected from him. I hope his constituents take note.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
No don't do that. One of the beauties of the book is that the same tales are told by different speakers with different viewpoints, and opinions at different times. Thus can the same event carry more or less psychic signifcance. Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition. It is the fog of war writ large. If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
Whilst covering very different subject and being a very different style of book, can I recommend the Alexandria Quartet by Laurence Durrell. It is the same series of events told in four books by four different protagonists. It is a masterful piece of writing.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
The problem is that the great British public are far happier on the five a day of: Sugar, Fat, Salt, Alcohol and Sofa, than on the 5 a day that I would recommend.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
Wasn't the nation at its healthiest during WWII rationing ? A possible upside for the economic devastation of cliff edge Brexit.
I see people extolling representative democracy over direct democracy here and I fail to understand why. The argument always seems to be mp's are better informed then I look at the topics they witter on about that I do know about such as encryption and realise they know absolutely nothing about it, fail to understand it and yet people want these cockwombles to legislate it
This was maybe true in the past. The sheer pace of technological change since the mid-90's has left most senior politicians behind.
Our politicians these days know the square root of bugger all I suspect largely tied to the rise of the professional political class that have never done anything else. Frankly I don't trust any of them to understand the ramifications of any issue.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
Amen to that, the drug problem we have is the biggest can being kicked down the road. The police try manfully to keep a lid on it but its impossible.
And no, I don't have the answer but I'd start with executing the peddlars of death known as dealers. They are the scum of the earth.
And yet your username is free to choose. Curiously Authoritarian?
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
The problem is that the great British public are far happier on the five a day of: Sugar, Fat, Salt, Alcohol and Sofa, than on the 5 a day that I would recommend.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
Problem is we make stupidity easy and cost free (in a financial sense with regard to rectification).
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Fewer Conservatives, more Labour, LD's now. So I doubt that margin has closed at all.
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
Ascribing opinions on any given issue to voters in a general election is a pretty futile exercise in mind reading.
The point being that our Remainer friends are claiming that a referendum is a bad way of making policy and we should instead use the system of Parliamentary Democracy we have in place to make these decisions. .
That system - as Robert pointed out - is based upon the parties stating before hand what their position is on the major issues of the day so as to allow the electorate to vote accordingly.
At the last election over 80% of the electorate voted for parties which said explicitly that the UK would leave the EU and moreover that we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. So in both the referendum and the General Election the electorate have made it very clear that their preference is for leaving. Unless of course you do not think that either form of vote is valid and have some other way of deciding what the public want?
Nope. A vote is what it is. The referendum was a vote to leave; the last election gave us a hung parliament - and it requires fairly heroic assumptions to call that either a pro or anti Brexit vote.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Hang on, at that time there 306 tory MPS. Lets say that 20 MPs from other parties voted to Leave, are you telling me that 138 of 306 tories were Remainers?
No don't do that. One of the beauties of the book is that the same tales are told by different speakers with different viewpoints, and opinions at different times. Thus can the same event carry more or less psychic signifcance. Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition. It is the fog of war writ large. If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
Whilst covering very different subject and being a very different style of book, can I recommend the Alexandria Quartet by Laurence Durrell. It is the same series of events told in four books by four different protagonists. It is a masterful piece of writing.
Thank you. Will try to check that out. Sounds intriguing.
I see people extolling representative democracy over direct democracy here and I fail to understand why. The argument always seems to be mp's are better informed then I look at the topics they witter on about that I do know about such as encryption and realise they know absolutely nothing about it, fail to understand it and yet people want these cockwombles to legislate it
Agree entirely. If MPs were indeed drawn from the most intelligent and most experienced of our nation, the experts and the philosophers along with the leaders of trades and those representing all walks of life then there might be something in the idea of the wisdom of Parliament.
As it is the majority of them appear to be a bunch of self serving idiots who know less than most because they spent all careers to date on the greasy pole of politics.
There are, as always, honourable exceptions but as a crowd I doubt their average IQ is anything to write home about.
They are the Peter Principle scrawled out in huge sky writing.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
It wasn't Brexit which led to the government borrowing over a trillion quid during the last decade or caused a £115bn current account deficit during 2016.
Might I suggest you cast blame for fucking the country to where it belongs.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Hang on, at that time there 306 tory MPS. Lets say that 20 MPs from other parties voted to Leave, are you telling me that 138 of 306 tories were Remainers?
I don't believe it.
I believe it is true. Overwhelmingly Parliament was in favour of Remain prior to the referendum. They were catastrophically unrepresentative of their electorate.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
Amen to that, the drug problem we have is the biggest can being kicked down the road. The police try manfully to keep a lid on it but its impossible.
And no, I don't have the answer but I'd start with executing the peddlars of death known as dealers. They are the scum of the earth.
And yet your username is free to choose. Curiously Authoritarian?
No conundrum for me, ingest what you like. But supply drugs that kill people and I'm happy for them to be executed.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Hang on, at that time there 306 tory MPS. Lets say that 20 MPs from other parties voted to Leave, are you telling me that 138 of 306 tories were Remainers?
Given the Euro has been established for well over 15 years I think it's safe to say that the UK has survived well enough without it.
Outside the Euro, we're not in the inner core of EU decision making. But, had we joined, I don't see how we would have moved the EU in any different direction from that of ever closer union, given we'd have explicitly signed up for it.
The best I can say (positively) is we might have been able to push more quickly for the development of the single market in services, had a bit more influence on European financial services regulation, and probably had a much bigger boom in the years leading up to 2008.
But, we'd then have suffered an almighty crash.
We'd have lost the ability to do QE, adjust our interest rates, and use our currency as an automatic stabiliser, not to mention all the further political and economic integration to come in the interests of the Euro's long-term stability, and I suspect British politics would currently be extremely febrile and dominated by debate on whether to bring back Sterling.
Britain didn't have a boom in the years leading up to 2008.
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
1) They can be withdrawn at any time up to the point unless a vote of confidence has been triggered. There is no time limit
2) They can be sent at anyone, and will remain anonymous, only the Chair of 22 knows, and 2003 it was said shadow ministers below cabinet rank sent letters.
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
Guess which book I am currently reading...
Catch-22?
Got it in one!
Great book! Although I keep promising myself that one day I am going to get a copy, cut it up, and read all the chapters in chronological order.
No don't do that. One of the beauties of the book is that the same tales are told by different speakers with different viewpoints, and opinions at different times. Thus can the same event carry more or less psychic signifcance. Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition. It is the fog of war writ large. If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
I know, I know, I was only teasing. Not sure it would be possible to resequence it chronologically, let alone advisable.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Hang on, at that time there 306 tory MPS. Lets say that 20 MPs from other parties voted to Leave, are you telling me that 138 of 306 tories were Remainers?
I don't believe it.
Didn't Guido have a crowdsourced list of all the MPs positions?
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
Wretched cant. Theresa May called an election specifically because she said that forces at Westminster, including Labour, were undermining Brexit. Watch her statement again and tell me the election result was an endorsement of leaving the EU.
People voted against May because she is useless and because she and her party have managed to upset both the young (with tuition fees and no housing prospects) and the old (with the removal of the triple lock and the late life care proposals).
But the people also voted overwhelmingly for 2 parties that were in favour not only of Brexit but of what most would term a hard Brexit.
The precious few votes that were in favour of reversing the decision went to the Lib Dems who did not exactly shine at all, and in Scotland to the SNP who saw their support drop dramatically.
Ascribing opinions on any given issue to voters in a general election is a pretty futile exercise in mind reading.
The point being that our Remainer friends are claiming that a referendum is a bad way of making policy and we should instead use the system of Parliamentary Democracy we have in place to make these decisions. .
That system - as Robert pointed out - is based upon the parties stating before hand what their position is on the major issues of the day so as to allow the electorate to vote accordingly.
At the last election over 80% of the electorate voted for parties which said explicitly that the UK would leave the EU and moreover that we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. So in both the referendum and the General Election the electorate have made it very clear that their preference is for leaving. Unless of course you do not think that either form of vote is valid and have some other way of deciding what the public want?
Nope. A vote is what it is. The referendum was a vote to leave; the last election gave us a hung parliament - and it requires fairly heroic assumptions to call that either a pro or anti Brexit vote.
The question of whether it was a hung Parliament or not is completely irrelevant. I doubt one in a thousands or even one in ten thousand people go to vote thinking they hope it will be a hung Parliament. They vote for the party or the MP who they feel best represents their views. Since the overwhelming majority of MPs were elected on a policy of seeing Brexit through, it is impossible to claim that that is not what the public wanted.
If they were truly opposed they could have voted Lib Dem.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
Hang on, at that time there 306 tory MPS. Lets say that 20 MPs from other parties voted to Leave, are you telling me that 138 of 306 tories were Remainers?
I don't believe it.
I don't give a ff whether you believe it but the Tory MPs declared 185 Remain to 138 Leave. The information is easily available if you care to check it.
I see the PB Brexiters have had their lager shandies (bold for a Tuesday night) and are spouting all kinds of Bollocks standing there in their Union Jack socks and saggy Y-fronts.
For no appreciable sovereignty gain (we always were...) they have fucked the country. Just as well we have one or two cabinet ministers who are refusing to join in the madness.
It wasn't Brexit which led to the government borrowing over a trillion quid during the last decade or caused a £115bn current account deficit during 2016.
Might I suggest you cast blame for fucking the country to where it belongs.
While at the same time being criticised for not spending enough.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
I see people extolling representative democracy over direct democracy here and I fail to understand why. The argument always seems to be mp's are better informed then I look at the topics they witter on about that I do know about such as encryption and realise they know absolutely nothing about it, fail to understand it and yet people want these cockwombles to legislate it
This was maybe true in the past. The sheer pace of technological change since the mid-90's has left most senior politicians behind.
Our politicians these days know the square root of bugger all I suspect largely tied to the rise of the professional political class that have never done anything else. Frankly I don't trust any of them to understand the ramifications of any issue.
Tough to argue with the thrust of that. Except they seem to know a lot about political presentation. Very little about the intricate details of whatever subject they pontiicate about. This applies many times over to anything invented since around 1980.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
Only 37.5% of the electorate voted to leave.
The opinions of those who can't be arsed to vote don't matter.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
Only 37.5% of the electorate voted to leave.
When it comes to voting if you don't vote you don't count. That has always been the principle.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
The problem is that the great British public are far happier on the five a day of: Sugar, Fat, Salt, Alcohol and Sofa, than on the 5 a day that I would recommend.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
Problem is we make stupidity easy and cost free (in a financial sense with regard to rectification).
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
Only 37.5% of the electorate voted to leave.
When it comes to voting if you don't vote you don't count. That has always been the principle.
I agree, but just pointing out to Sunil that the 'majority of the electorate' didn't vote to Leave; the majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote did.
I voted leave for me this is a many step process, first take back control from the eu, next take back control from westminster. This country is far too centralised. Democracy works best in a small demos. Decisions should be taken as locally as possible and only kicked up to the next tier when there is a clash between demos's over a decision. Central government should only be responsible really for defense, foreign affairs,law, and setting minimum standards for health, education etc. How the smaller area's want to approach education is up to them as long as they meet the minimum standard set. If a localised area wants to go above and beyond in area in order to attract people thats a decision for their voters
A couple of questions on the details of how the 48 letters are reached:
1. Can letters be withdrawn by the MP and, once sent but not withdrawn, is there a time limit on how long do they remain valid? 2. The level is set at 15% of total MPs, but can the letters only be sent by backbenchers, which would suggests a somewhat higher threshold of those eligible to store?
If letters are withdrawable or time limited, I can imagine there have already been waves of letters as the favoured candidates of various factions looked set to move, only to be withdrawn when they did not. I'm thinking it is something akin to a peloton, and two factions moving at the same time is what could do for Theresa.
Is that right?
I presume individual letters come off the list if the MP dies, resigns or loses his/her seat? (Though one assumes not many were submitted before the GE.)
Yup, you have to be a current MP in receipt of the Tory whip.
So Anne Marie Morris can't participate as things stand.
So she could just direct the government whips to remove the Tory whip from any dissenters. Simples!
You have to be a loyal Conservative to sign a letter against May. If you want to sign a letter against May then you clearly are not a loyal Conservative.
Guess which book I am currently reading...
Catch-22?
Got it in one!
Great book! Although I keep promising myself that one day I am going to get a copy, cut it up, and read all the chapters in chronological order.
No don't do that. One of the beauties of the book is that the same tales are told by different speakers with different viewpoints, and opinions at different times. Thus can the same event carry more or less psychic signifcance. Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition. It is the fog of war writ large. If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
I know, I know, I was only teasing. Not sure it would be possible to resequence it chronologically, let alone advisable.
You need to sort the chapters chronologically in order to understand the book. You need to understand the book in order to sort the chapters chronologically.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
Amen to that, the drug problem we have is the biggest can being kicked down the road. The police try manfully to keep a lid on it but its impossible.
And no, I don't have the answer but I'd start with executing the peddlars of death known as dealers. They are the scum of the earth.
And yet your username is free to choose. Curiously Authoritarian?
No conundrum for me, ingest what you like. But supply drugs that kill people and I'm happy for them to be executed.
Fair enough my friend. I respect your point of view, and am too far gone on my own drug of choice (red wine) to disagree. So we will agree to disagree.
There was no Brexit dividend for the Tories because the Labour Party "neutralized" the Brexit question at the election by lying and pretending that they would honour the referendum result?
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
I irrelevant as I was responding to "Freetochoose" who accused me of making it up when I said the HoC had a an anti-Brexit majority. No doubt the facts will now be dismissed as fake news.
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
Though perhaps not quite as extreme as that I believe the case has been made by safety campaigners that the improvements in car safety over the decades and particularly the improvements in comfort such as noise levels, insulating people from the world outside, has led to drivers being more likely to drive too fast, not take account of road conditions and generally be less safe.
Between Damian Green, the thrice denial header and these two little points from Alastair Campbell, I wonder if we are about to see the ultimate reverse ferret. Not good for democracy, but good for popcorn sales.
Good man. There are real risks in such an operation as I unfortunately know from a friend who died shortly after donating a kidney. Simon is sure to have been well aware of the potential risks so all credit to him.
I voted leave for me this is a many step process, first take back control from the eu, next take back control from westminster. This country is far too centralised. Democracy works best in a small demos. Decisions should be taken as locally as possible and only kicked up to the next tier when there is a clash between demos's over a decision. Central government should only be responsible really for defense, foreign affairs,law, and setting minimum standards for health, education etc. How the smaller area's want to approach education is up to them as long as they meet the minimum standard set. If a localised area wants to go above and beyond in area in order to attract people thats a decision for their voters
I irrelevant as I was responding to "Freetochoose" who accused me of making it up when I said the HoC had a an anti-Brexit majority. No doubt the facts will now be dismissed as fake news.
He's like a holocaust denier, present him with the facts that shatter his illusions, and he's nowhere to be seen.
Between Damian Green, the thrice denial header and these two little points from Alastair Campbell, I wonder if we are about to see the ultimate reverse ferret. Not good for democracy, but good for popcorn sales.
Between Damian Green, the thrice denial header and these two little points from Alastair Campbell, I wonder if we are about to see the ultimate reverse ferret. Not good for democracy, but good for popcorn sales.
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
Though perhaps not quite as extreme as that I believe the case has been made by safety campaigners that the improvements in car safety over the decades and particularly the improvements in comfort such as noise levels, insulating people from the world outside, has led to drivers being more likely to drive too fast, not take account of road conditions and generally be less safe.
It is an interesting argument, but road traffic deaths have steadily dropped from the peacetime peak in the sixties, now down by 3/4 from then. I recall the do in collisions is also down.
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
best to change our policies and go for legalisation of drugs then.
We have a failed policy causing social problems, societial problems, enforcement problems, medical problems, and financial problems.
Certainly both deaths from formerly legal highs and the number of homeless zombies on spice show that making them illegal is a mixed result at best. Decriminalisation perhaps rather than legalisation.
Perhaps the real answer is to have a society that dealt with the underlying causes of addiction, such as poverty, family breakdown, mental health, rootlessness, lack of opportunity, lack of aspiration and related issues.
I have seen enough of lives destroyed by addiction for a lifetime, not just the addicts, but also their families and friends.
I do work with a mental health charity, drugs are bad news.
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
The problem is that the great British public are far happier on the five a day of: Sugar, Fat, Salt, Alcohol and Sofa, than on the 5 a day that I would recommend.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
Problem is we make stupidity easy and cost free (in a financial sense with regard to rectification).
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
If something is safe you push it to its limit.
Drive in Netherlands, very few squashed cyclists. Lots of shared spaces and cycle priority.
Between Damian Green, the thrice denial header and these two little points from Alastair Campbell, I wonder if we are about to see the ultimate reverse ferret. Not good for democracy, but good for popcorn sales.
Between Damian Green, the thrice denial header and these two little points from Alastair Campbell, I wonder if we are about to see the ultimate reverse ferret. Not good for democracy, but good for popcorn sales.
It's revokable because Campbell said so? Hm, not the most impartial of sources.
Lord Kerr seemed to think it was revocable, and he would know.
No one knows. The only court which can make that sort of judgement is the ECJ as they are the arbiters of disputes concerning the interpretation of the EU treaties.
Until they actually make a call on this everyone is just claiming whatever supports their preferred outcome.
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
Though perhaps not quite as extreme as that I believe the case has been made by safety campaigners that the improvements in car safety over the decades and particularly the improvements in comfort such as noise levels, insulating people from the world outside, has led to drivers being more likely to drive too fast, not take account of road conditions and generally be less safe.
It is an interesting argument, but road traffic deaths have steadily dropped from the peacetime peak in the sixties, now down by 3/4 from then. I recall the do in collisions is also down.
I believe traffic deaths are down primarily because of additional safety features. The police do not record damage only accidents so I am not sure how that measures up.
Reminds me of the idea to replace car airbags and seatbelts with sharp metal spikes. The idea would be to encourage safe driving!
Though perhaps not quite as extreme as that I believe the case has been made by safety campaigners that the improvements in car safety over the decades and particularly the improvements in comfort such as noise levels, insulating people from the world outside, has led to drivers being more likely to drive too fast, not take account of road conditions and generally be less safe.
It is an interesting argument, but road traffic deaths have steadily dropped from the peacetime peak in the sixties, now down by 3/4 from then. I recall the do in collisions is also down.
I believe traffic deaths are down primarily because of additional safety features. The police do not record damage only accidents so I am not sure how that measures up.
There was a study in America on this, and it mostly down to safer cars, and more SUVs.
Trumpton: Unconfirmed stories that the White House Chief of Staff is on his way out.
Twitter rumours suggesting Kelly quit weeks ago but they were waiting for the right time to announce it. Still not official yet though - assuming it's true.
Its very revealing on CNN, for every hour, 5 mins on Weinstein, 55 mins still banging on about Trump related nonsense like NFL anthem stuff and his willy waving over his IQ.
It really isn't a news network anymore, it is just the (anti) Trump News Network.
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
I irrelevant as I was responding to "Freetochoose" who accused me of making it up when I said the HoC had a an anti-Brexit majority. No doubt the facts will now be dismissed as fake news.
But the HoC is accountable to their electors are they not?
Yesterday I watched Louis Theroux's latest programme which was on the opiates epidemic in the United States, and tonight the first item on the BBC 10 O'clock News was about a similar problem in County Durham.
The USA opioid epidemic is truly horriffic. It is largely a small town Red state phenomenon, while previous epidemics were urban blue inner cities. It started with over prescription and abuse of prescription of opiods by my profession, before people switched to cheaper heroin.
More people now die of opiate overdoses in America than motor vehicle collisions or due to guns. It is way out of control.
Will we follow the same route? possibly so.
Very much doubt it. Over prexcriptipnnand abuse of opioids have been a thing for probably 15 years with the FDA developing REMS and encouraging physical and chemical anti-abuse technologies.
Thankfully our health services recognises that opioids shouldn't been handed out like candy.
Although you can buy codeine over the counter which startles my American friends!
She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
The wrong decision according to who?
According to a majority of MPs in the HoC
How can you be sure how they all voted?
It's pretty clear that a majority of MPs are anti-Brexit even though they will implement the referendum decision
I honestly can't think of a single thing that has happened since the referendum that would have convinced any Remain voter to change their opinion. If anything I think their views will have hardened I know mine have,
So you don't know, thanks.
I recall the conversations you and I had pre referendum, I'll take your guesses with a pinch of salt after you said no Labour people in the north would vote to Leave.
Are you saying that a majority of the current HoC voted to leave the EU?
Nope, it was you who stated the opposite. I've no idea how or even if they voted.
Nor do you, you're making things up again
At the time of the referendum the stated position of MPs (according to BBC news) was 158 Leave 479 Remain. So we actually do know that a majority of the HoC are opposed to Brexit.
How about a majority of their employers (ie. the electorate).
I irrelevant as I was responding to "Freetochoose" who accused me of making it up when I said the HoC had a an anti-Brexit majority. No doubt the facts will now be dismissed as fake news.
But the HoC is accountable to their electors are they not?
They are representatives not delegates. They can of course be thrown out.
Comments
I concur with you 100% on prevention. That is applicable for drugs and so many health problems. Get rid of half the Drs, halve the pay of the rest, dump half the Hospitals with the PFI atached, NHS administrators can join the scrap heap and spend the money on prevention. Imagine half the NHS budget on stopping ailments of all kinds. We would be healthy!
If anything was endorsed it would be the Dementia tax. If that can be ditched despite being a central plank in the winning manifesto, then why not junk other policies?
Nor do you, you're making things up again
Therefore reflecting the chaos, confusion and sheer random happenstance of War, and, by extension, the human condition.
It is the fog of war writ large.
If you understand it fully, you lessen the effect.
I could walk outside and throw £30 down the drain or give my bank account details to a fake eBay email asking for them or send £20,000 to a nice man in Nigeria who has promised me millions of quid in return.
All of my own volition. But of course all totally bonkers, or dimly idiotic which is I think the correct analogy you were searching for.
And no, I don't have the answer but I'd start with executing the peddlars of death known as dealers. They are the scum of the earth.
In a free society, people are allowed to be stupid.
They put themselves in the darkest part of my wardrobe.
Something to do with the Owls methinks.
Was thinking of getting some TM ones but apparently your balls could get caught. Or you may need to attend an EU court to retrieve them.
That system - as Robert pointed out - is based upon the parties stating before hand what their position is on the major issues of the day so as to allow the electorate to vote accordingly.
At the last election over 80% of the electorate voted for parties which said explicitly that the UK would leave the EU and moreover that we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. So in both the referendum and the General Election the electorate have made it very clear that their preference is for leaving. Unless of course you do not think that either form of vote is valid and have some other way of deciding what the public want?
A possible upside for the economic devastation of cliff edge Brexit.
The referendum was a vote to leave; the last election gave us a hung parliament - and it requires fairly heroic assumptions to call that either a pro or anti Brexit vote.
I don't believe it.
Will try to check that out. Sounds intriguing.
As it is the majority of them appear to be a bunch of self serving idiots who know less than most because they spent all careers to date on the greasy pole of politics.
There are, as always, honourable exceptions but as a crowd I doubt their average IQ is anything to write home about.
They are the Peter Principle scrawled out in huge sky writing.
Might I suggest you cast blame for fucking the country to where it belongs.
128 Tory MPs backed Leave
Rest didn't didn't say
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/europe-how-conservative-mps-break-down-1-over-half-those-backing-remain-are-on-the-payroll.html
It had a house price and consumption bubble.
If they were truly opposed they could have voted Lib Dem.
No good deed goes unpunished, etc
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/917874220926980096
That's it. Enough!
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/917876267256569856
You need to understand the book in order to sort the chapters chronologically.
OK, I'll stop now.
'Live' secret kidney transplant from friend saved life of top Labour MP three years ago
Donor and MEP Sion Simon said it 'wasn't a difficult decision' as he and Khalid Mahmood talk publicly about procedure for the first time
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/live-secret-kidney-transplant-friend-11321457
So we will agree to disagree.
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/917639730229141504
Drive in Netherlands, very few squashed cyclists. Lots of shared spaces and cycle priority.
Until they actually make a call on this everyone is just claiming whatever supports their preferred outcome.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/917881158582620160
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/917870804880297985
Facebook and Twitter could face 'online abuse' tax
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41566833
It really isn't a news network anymore, it is just the (anti) Trump News Network.
Thankfully our health services recognises that opioids shouldn't been handed out like candy.
Although you can buy codeine over the counter which startles my American friends!