I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.
So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.
The June election was about everything but Brexit.
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
If the dementia tax cost more votes than Brexit, that does not negate the point that Brexit cost votes.
Which was the point.
It didn't on a net basis, over 50% of 2015 UKIP voters voted Tory in June, just most decided to do it before the campaign
I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.
So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
Yes the Tory poll lead effectively halved after the dementia tax proposals and bang went her majority with it
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Corbyn wins in 2022 then Brexit will be a distant memory by the time 2027 rolls round.
Even that'll be blamed on Brexit. Brexit is a scourge and though at the moment it's only understood by those with a measurable IQ by 2027 even those on the East Coast will get it
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Brexit doesn't happen, who do you think will be in power, given that the people will have been cheated out of their clearly stated result in both 2016 and 2017?
A failure to deliver the democratic will is going to turn into MPs expenses, cubed. There will be a wholesale clear-out of MPs, to be replaced by some significantly less savoury characters.
First of all, of course, 48% of people, probably all voters, will be mightly relieved if Brexit DOESN’T happen. Many of the 52%, particularly in areas with traditionally low turnout will shrug their shoulders and say something ‘what do you expect!’ Particularly if the Express is sold to the Mirror Group and stops printing rubbish about, for example, Diana being a Leaver!
Pretty sure there's not a HUGE rap fan base on here, but I don't think I've seen such genuine anger in a performance for a long time (rap being quite an angry form in any case).
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Corbyn wins in 2022 then Brexit will be a distant memory by the time 2027 rolls round.
Even that'll be blamed on Brexit. Brexit is a scourge and though at the moment it's only understood by those with a measurable IQ by 2027 even those on the East Coast will get it
By 2027 Corbyn would be implementing both hard Brexit and socialism
Kind of makes you wonder - how the fuck did we get locked into a system like that in the first place then? Who is standing up to take the credit for that? (No, sit down Mr. Clegg. You really weren't that powerful.)
If there are Ministers who aren't prepared to take solving Brexit seriously, Mr. Hammond, there are others would be happy to try.
Pretty sure there's not a HUGE rap fan base on here, but I don't think I've seen such genuine anger in a performance for a long time (rap being quite an angry form in any case).
I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.
So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.
The June election was about everything but Brexit.
Anecdotally I think that's right. Campaigning in a safe WWC seat and a marginal suburban seat (Nottingham N and Broxtowe), I rarely found Brexit coming up as an issue - from memory only about four voters mentioned it spontaneously. My impression is that most people felt it was a settled issue and so the election was about something else, such as care home costs or the NHS or May's stable nature or Corbyn's suitability as PM - opinions on all these things evolved during the campaign, as we've discussed. Clearly there were different swings among Remain and Leave voters, but I'm not sure they were all caused by Brexit - rather, a lot of ABC1 Remain voters went off the Tories for other reasons.
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well. I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
At least they are being relatively clear, even if sone are not answering. I never recalled may saying she felt she made a mistake in 2016, so by definition she never felt Brexit was best, she was just about making it as great as possible, but during her honeymoon period some were acting like she was really a leaver all along, even if she said otherwise. Which was odd praise, as it meant she was a liar or coward.
Very good thread header, exploring several explanations to attempt to explain where we are now. I would have liked to have seen Alastair explore one more important avenue in his piece - The media, both MSM and Social.
In the past ten years there have been great changes in both forms of media. Memes and slogans have become king and are used to discourage and close down discussion and objective thinking. Examples being "Corbyn is unelectable", " Fake News", "the one per cent" and more recently, "Venezuela".
Journalists have generally become less objective, more partisan and less subtle about it. Social media, thanks to it's easy and simple "sharing" facility is 99% memes and only 1% sensible and objective discussion.
Both forms of media sow the seeds of hated and discontent like never before. Is it any wonder, therefore that this is reflected when people get their one chance every few years to make their voices heard in an election?
There is also a "meta" level of fake news, which is the fake rebuttal. "Everest is the highest mountain in the world"; "Yebbut Snopes have mythbusted that"; in fact outside the easy cases (9/11, moon landings faked) Snopes seems to phone in easy answers on the lines of "no photographic evidence so can't be true".
Kind of makes you wonder - how the fuck did we get locked into a system like that in the first place then? Who is standing up to take the credit for that? (No, sit down Mr. Clegg. You really weren't that powerful.)
If there are Ministers who aren't prepared to take solving Brexit seriously, Mr. Hammond, there are others would be happy to try.
Mrs Thatcher wasn't it who started the ball rolling on it?
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well. I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.
If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.
Pretty sure there's not a HUGE rap fan base on here, but I don't think I've seen such genuine anger in a performance for a long time (rap being quite an angry form in any case).
Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."
Eminem succinctly dealt with that point in The Real Slim Shady.
Pretty sure there's not a HUGE rap fan base on here, but I don't think I've seen such genuine anger in a performance for a long time (rap being quite an angry form in any case).
He is, he played an open air concert in Glasgow this summer. I was almost tempted to go but decided to lower the 'silly, old farts reliving their past' quotient by one.
Interesting thought as I prepare, as Secretary, for my local U3a’s AGM. If we want to change the constitution we need at 2/3 majority of those present and voting at the AGM. Slightly over 50% wouldn’t do it.
Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.
Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."
Hope you told the sorry motherf***er to get f***ing real.
Edit: unless it was you making that point of course, in which case I hope your friend listened to you respectfully and gave the idea due consideration.
Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."
Public enemy had a good few lines on what they think about the constant use of the n word in rap.
Rolling Stones of the rap game, not bragging Lips bigger than Jagger, not saggin' Spell it backwards, I'ma leave it at that That ain't got nothing to do with rap
Mr. Divvie, friend of mine at school was a rapper. Used to have some amusing conversations. One that stood out included the line: "There's no place for swearing in rap."
Public enemy had a good few lines on what they think about the constant use of the n word in rap.
Rolling Stones of the rap game, not bragging Lips bigger than Jagger, not saggin' Spell it backwards, I'ma leave it at that That ain't got nothing to do with rap
Perhaps that's the excuse Anne-Marie Morris should have used, 'I am a rapper'
King Cole, a perhaps legitimate point, but there are two ripostes which must be made. First off, applying a filter like that retrospectively is a good way to infuriate half the country. Secondly, what do you do when 52% want to leave? If you remain as is, you're siding with the minority, which is a democratically courageous thing to do. If you don't actually leave, then you need a third option.
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well. I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.
If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.
Only by pretending to be in favour of Remaining. Corbyn this year was all things to all men. He will only get elected if the Conservatives are sufficiently repellent. But Mr Meeks was suggesting, I think, that some Conservatives are starting to see just how stupid their policies are.
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.
So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.
The June election was about everything but Brexit.
Anecdotally I think that's right. Campaigning in a safe WWC seat and a marginal suburban seat (Nottingham N and Broxtowe), I rarely found Brexit coming up as an issue - from memory only about four voters mentioned it spontaneously. My impression is that most people felt it was a settled issue and so the election was about something else, such as care home costs or the NHS or May's stable nature or Corbyn's suitability as PM - opinions on all these things evolved during the campaign, as we've discussed. Clearly there were different swings among Remain and Leave voters, but I'm not sure they were all caused by Brexit - rather, a lot of ABC1 Remain voters went off the Tories for other reasons.
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Brexit doesn't happen, who do you think will be in power, given that the people will have been cheated out of their clearly stated result in both 2016 and 2017?
A failure to deliver the democratic will is going to turn into MPs expenses, cubed. There will be a wholesale clear-out of MPs, to be replaced by some significantly less savoury characters.
First of all, of course, 48% of people, probably all voters, will be mightly relieved if Brexit DOESN’T happen. Many of the 52%, particularly in areas with traditionally low turnout will shrug their shoulders and say something ‘what do you expect!’ Particularly if the Express is sold to the Mirror Group and stops printing rubbish about, for example, Diana being a Leaver!
But if Brexit doesn't happen, you will have the entertaining spectacle of the majority of voters blaming everything that goes wrong in Britain as a result of the politicians not implementing Brexit.....
Everything.
Just like the Remainers currently try now, but without the weight of the majority will behind them for validity.
Glad people enjoyed the piece. I was worried that it was too long (and was terser than I would have liked to be about some points) so I'm cheered that some wanted it to cover other things as well. I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
But when everybody finally realises that a headbanger Brexit will wreck the economy, maybe the Conservative Party will come to its senses again. In that case, the present crop of Tory MPs who go along with the Exit from Brexit may find themselves well placed to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party.
If any of them think that, it is very optimistic of them. And it would mean Corbyn is in power since the government would fall first, and Corbyn has somehow garnered many remain votes instead of the lds.
Only by pretending to be in favour of Remaining. Corbyn this year was all things to all men. He will only get elected if the Conservatives are sufficiently repellent. But Mr Meeks was suggesting, I think, that some Conservatives are starting to see just how stupid their policies are.
Perhaps but that won't save the party from losing to Corbyn, who can then repel any latent remainers all he wants.
King Cole, a perhaps legitimate point, but there are two ripostes which must be made. First off, applying a filter like that retrospectively is a good way to infuriate half the country. Secondly, what do you do when 52% want to leave? If you remain as is, you're siding with the minority, which is a democratically courageous thing to do. If you don't actually leave, then you need a third option.
Interesting thought as I prepare, as Secretary, for my local U3a’s AGM. If we want to change the constitution we need at 2/3 majority of those present and voting at the AGM. Slightly over 50% wouldn’t do it.
Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.
Hat-tip to Bristol for Europe’s Facebook page.
Fine. So, to re-join the EU, we will need a 2/3 majority.
Slightly over 50 per cent won't do it, as you say.
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Do "top psephologists" fall into the "experts" category?
Well John Curtice (pbuh) and his team got the election spot on in June, nearly right in 2015, largely spot on in 2010, so yes.
Even that 'nearly right' was constantly accompanied by him, somewhat worriedly, going "the results *are* consistent with a Tory majority". I'd give him a lot of credit for 2015.
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Brexit doesn't happen, who do you think will be in power, given that the people will have been cheated out of their clearly stated result in both 2016 and 2017?
A failure to deliver the democratic will is going to turn into MPs expenses, cubed. There will be a wholesale clear-out of MPs, to be replaced by some significantly less savoury characters.
I would say the marginal majority for Brexit is fragile and depends on it being delivered with the promised absence of bad effects. It's in danger of being killed by a thousand problems. The inability to operate an integrated air service, a couple of major car plants closing, farmers seeing their income cut by a half. etc etc etc.. Before too long people will decide Brexit is in the too problematic basket. That's why Leavers and the government can't in my view afford a WTO/no deal Brexit. It guarantees failure for them. Which means we are now totally dependent on the goodwill of the EU, as we never were as members. Who owe us no favours and reckon they have been damaged by our behaviour.
Interesting thought as I prepare, as Secretary, for my local U3a’s AGM. If we want to change the constitution we need at 2/3 majority of those present and voting at the AGM. Slightly over 50% wouldn’t do it.
Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.
Hat-tip to Bristol for Europe’s Facebook page.
Fine. So, to re-join the EU, we will need a 2/3 majority.
Slightly over 50 per cent won't do it, as you say.
As was achieved last time! At least a 2/3 vote!
Which we might well get if, for example, Spanish hollidays are only accessible by train or car!
Do "top psephologists" fall into the "experts" category?
Well John Curtice (pbuh) and his team got the election spot on in June, nearly right in 2015, largely spot on in 2010, so yes.
Even that 'nearly right' was constantly accompanied by him, somewhat worriedly, going "the results *are* consistent with a Tory majority". I'd give him a lot of credit for 2015.
My claim to fame, I called a Tory majority 3 hours before John Curtice did on GE2015 night.
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Interesting thought as I prepare, as Secretary, for my local U3a’s AGM. If we want to change the constitution we need at 2/3 majority of those present and voting at the AGM. Slightly over 50% wouldn’t do it.
Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.
Hat-tip to Bristol for Europe’s Facebook page.
I think it's like that because parliament decided that charities and limited companies must have written rules but the UK as a country needn't! Instead it muddles on with an unwritten constitution including precedents set by Henry VIII, the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and other assorted history.
I can see the advantage of keeping a constitution flexible, a bit like the common law. (Spain could do with more flexibility.) But couldn't we combine the two?
I was not the one trying to draw unsupported conclusions from the election results. That was the idiotic Anna Soubry. She is the one claiming the loss of the majority was due to people not wanting Brexit. Conveniently ignoring all those UKIP supporters who voted Labour safe in the knowledge they had promised a hard Brexit.
So over the campaign Labour gained 8% from non Tory Remain voters and only 5% from Tory Remain voters. The Tories had already gained most of the UKIP Leave voters who voted for them before the campaign. So it was still likely the dementia tax and not Brexit which cost the Tories in the campaign
The effect of the dementia tax are very clear as have election polls from both the period where May was backing hard Brexit and no dementia tax, and from the period where May was backing hard Brexit and the dementia tax
The crazy thing about May's June Brexit election was that there was nothing to talk about on Brexit when Labour and the Tories had not a fag paper between them. So some bright spark thought they should air their half-thought-through ideas on terminal care costs.
The June election was about everything but Brexit.
Anecdotally I think that's right. Campaigning in a safe WWC seat and a marginal suburban seat (Nottingham N and Broxtowe), I rarely found Brexit coming up as an issue - from memory only about four voters mentioned it spontaneously. My impression is that most people felt it was a settled issue and so the election was about something else, such as care home costs or the NHS or May's stable nature or Corbyn's suitability as PM - opinions on all these things evolved during the campaign, as we've discussed. Clearly there were different swings among Remain and Leave voters, but I'm not sure they were all caused by Brexit - rather, a lot of ABC1 Remain voters went off the Tories for other reasons.
I think Brexit was a factor in London - I canvassed in several seats and the first inkling I had that the election would not be the expected Tory walkover was when voters in prosperous-looking houses in Wandsworth told me they were not voting Tory because of Brexit. The fact that Labour policy was not very different from that of the Tories did not put them off - they just wanted to punish the Tories for holding the referendum vote and then losing it. This was a big factor in the exceptionally large swings to Labour in London IMO.
If Brexit is betrayed, a Corbyn landslide is guaranteed. Leave voters will sit on their hands in their millions.
If Brexit happens then Tories out of power for generations.
If Brexit doesn't happen, who do you think will be in power, given that the people will have been cheated out of their clearly stated result in both 2016 and 2017?
A failure to deliver the democratic will is going to turn into MPs expenses, cubed. There will be a wholesale clear-out of MPs, to be replaced by some significantly less savoury characters.
First of all, of course, 48% of people, probably all voters, will be mightly relieved if Brexit DOESN’T happen. Many of the 52%, particularly in areas with traditionally low turnout will shrug their shoulders and say something ‘what do you expect!’ Particularly if the Express is sold to the Mirror Group and stops printing rubbish about, for example, Diana being a Leaver!
But if Brexit doesn't happen, you will have the entertaining spectacle of the majority of voters blaming everything that goes wrong in Britain as a result of the politicians not implementing Brexit.....
Everything.
Just like the Remainers currently try now, but without the weight of the majority will behind them for validity.
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Charles IV?
It’s a hat tip to our much missed Jacobite, JackW. Bonnie Prince Charlie would have been Charles III!
Do "top psephologists" fall into the "experts" category?
Well John Curtice (pbuh) and his team got the election spot on in June, nearly right in 2015, largely spot on in 2010, so yes.
Even that 'nearly right' was constantly accompanied by him, somewhat worriedly, going "the results *are* consistent with a Tory majority". I'd give him a lot of credit for 2015.
I wonder how much multilevel regression, like the You Gov analysis, we will get in 2022, and how good it will be.
If Brexit doesn't happen it will be extremely difficult to hold a serious referendum on any topic - including Scottish Independence for 35+ years.
Also the government that calls a second referendum will be severely punished by a significant majority of the electorate for having us endure another one - and ignoring the first.
For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Not such a major change if it is simply Charles deciding to call himself William as king (and perhaps hoping nobody will notice).
OldKingCole - isn't that just a device to give the minority that does very well from the status quo the power to block change? Would you say a political party getting 65.9% of the vote should be allowed to make any changes?
I didn’t write any changes. I referred to major changes. There’s a difference.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Charles IV?
It’s a hat tip to our much missed Jacobite, JackW. Bonnie Prince Charlie would have been Charles III!
For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!
I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.
If Brexit doesn't happen it will be extremely difficult to hold a serious referendum on any topic - including Scottish Independence for 35+ years.
Also the government that calls a second referendum will be severely punished by a significant majority of the electorate for having us endure another one - and ignoring the first
Interesting that Hammond is totally not mincing his words about Brexit. Either he has decided he is not going to be Party Leader and possibly cabinet minister for much longer and wants to lay it out as it is, so he doesn't get the blame for when it goes pear-shaped and maybe he can influence things for the better. Or he believes the public will turn against Brexit as previously sold and he could reap the benefits.
If Brexit doesn't happen it will be extremely difficult to hold a serious referendum on any topic - including Scottish Independence for 35+ years.
Also the government that calls a second referendum will be severely punished by a significant majority of the electorate for having us endure another one - and ignoring the first.
The biggest problem would be the next time the EU does treaty change. The distrust of/anger at he UK government and the EU itself over any powers given away would be off the charts. And no-one would trust a referendum.
With all the Russian interference and big money spending in elections, faith in democracy is more in question than any time since the 1940s. Giving it another clobbering would be a big mistake in my opinion.
For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!
I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.
I think it will be up there. I'm certain it's going to be revered and be a cult-classic just like the original.
Coming through passport control at Schipol this morning, the burly officer saw I had a British passport and said in a rather menacing tone "where's your EU visa?". Any other regular travellers getting this kind of treatment in the EU27? I'm noticing it more and more.
There are style guides around that would simply have an apostrophe as signifying a missing 'of' without any complex consideration as to whether or not possession is involved. So, I see your 'Goods' exports' and raise you a 'People's Free Movement'.
AFP news agencyVERIFIED ACCOUNT @AFP 3 mins3 minutes ago
#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence
Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.
The Spanish lawyers not sure they can bring a case against the Catalans if the declaration of independence has taken place or not when it is suspended.
There are style guides around that would simply have an apostrophe as signifying a missing 'of' without any complex consideration as to whether or not possession is involved. So, I see your 'Goods' exports' and raise you a 'People's Free Movement'.
Treasury head is surely a synecdoche?
Head of Treasury versus Treasury's Head versus Treasury head.
For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!
I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.
I think it will be up there. I'm certain it's going to be revered and be a cult-classic just like the original.
It will have to be given it flopped at the box office.
I liked it better than the original, though I did have some issues, structurally. It was stunning and despite contemplative pace it didn't drag despite being near 3 hours.
AFP news agencyVERIFIED ACCOUNT @AFP 3 mins3 minutes ago
#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence
Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.
The Spanish lawyers not sure they can bring a case against the Catalans if the declaration of independence has taken place or not when it is suspended.
It's a trap being set. Don't tell them Pike.
Profile of Rajoy on r4 on Sunday said that his approach to everything is entirely legalistic - if the referendum was unlawful, that is the end of the matter. Presumably the same applies to Puigdemont's UDI, if he made one.
Interesting that Hammond is totally not mincing his words about Brexit. Either he has decided he is not going to be Party Leader and possibly cabinet minister for much longer and wants to lay it out as it is, so he doesn't get the blame for when it goes pear-shaped and maybe he can influence things for the better. Or he believes the public will turn against Brexit as previously sold and he could reap the benefits.
As a Brexit supporter I though Hammond answered the Select Committee questions in a fair, thoughtful and unbiased way. He is very much on top of his brief.
AFP news agencyVERIFIED ACCOUNT @AFP 3 mins3 minutes ago
#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence
Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.
Sounds like they are confused, which probably means it was a well done statement from catalonia, at least in terms of them batting the ball back and forth.
For all those that have already seen it and loved it I agree with you, saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday. Enjoyed the storyline a lot and visually such a stunning film, Wow!
I saw it at the weekend and thought it was excellent. In contention for the best sci-fi film ever in my opinion.
My wife and I saw BladeRunner 2049 a few days ago.
I marked it 3 out of 10 and my wife marked it zero out of ten.
The plot was thin and incoherent.
The pace was snail.
Some of the computer generated images were amateur.
AFP news agencyVERIFIED ACCOUNT @AFP 3 mins3 minutes ago
#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence
Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.
Sounds like they are confused, which probably means it was a well done statement from catalonia, at least in terms of them batting the ball back and forth.
While the economic consequences of the vote in terms of corporate relocations grows, they are ramping up the pressure to exploit the fissures amongst the independentistas. Seems like a reasonable strategy to me.
And I'm unconvinced someone who thinks Caesar was a better general than Hannibal should run around criticising the intellectual capacity of other people.
Comments
The June election was about everything but Brexit.
I see that the Conservative Remain-supporting politicians are queuing up today to make themselves unelectable as Conservative leader. This should provide betting opportunities.
Particularly if the Express is sold to the Mirror Group and stops printing rubbish about, for example, Diana being a Leaver!
https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/917955545197314048
If there are Ministers who aren't prepared to take solving Brexit seriously, Mr. Hammond, there are others would be happy to try.
It's also quick, simple and cheap.
but you won't like it...
https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/
Was one the reasons she privatised BA.
The chains are tight.
There is a difference between possible and probable. Any chancellor who ignored the possibility would be grossly irresponsible.
We do have a Sex Pistols Government
Most are Pretty Vacant and we do have Anarchy in UK (Even round the Cabinet table)
Why doesn’t something like this apply to changes to our country’s constititution? Especially given that it’s a normal requirment for a charity.
Hat-tip to Bristol for Europe’s Facebook page.
Edit: unless it was you making that point of course, in which case I hope your friend listened to you respectfully and gave the idea due consideration.
Dido has an amazing voice.
Rolling Stones of the rap game, not bragging
Lips bigger than Jagger, not saggin'
Spell it backwards, I'ma leave it at that
That ain't got nothing to do with rap
As far as rap is concerned, the remarkable Hamilton musical persuaded me of its potential as an art form.
Mr. Divvie, my reply went a little something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKDvWh2JUQ
Mr. Eagles, but terrible taste in men.
You are right though that it is commendable honesty.
Everything.
Just like the Remainers currently try now, but without the weight of the majority will behind them for validity.
When he gets to work with real votes cast (And British people seem to be fairly honest in exit polls!), he can produce highly accurate forecasts.
'I'm a goodass motherliker', words to live by.
That's an appalling misuse of an apostrophe.
Slightly over 50 per cent won't do it, as you say.
But, taking the point would I say that nationalisation of the railways was a major change? No
Would I say that declaring that the next Monarch will be William V, not Charles IV was major? Yes.
Which we might well get if, for example, Spanish hollidays are only accessible by train or car!
I can see the advantage of keeping a constitution flexible, a bit like the common law. (Spain could do with more flexibility.) But couldn't we combine the two?
Also the government that calls a second referendum will be severely punished by a significant majority of the electorate for having us endure another one - and ignoring the first.
With all the Russian interference and big money spending in elections, faith in democracy is more in question than any time since the 1940s. Giving it another clobbering would be a big mistake in my opinion.
#BREAKING Spain PM asks Catalan leader to clarify if he declared independence
Great,so the Spainish PM is turning up the heat again.
It's a trap being set. Don't tell them Pike.
https://order-order.com/2017/10/11/pidcock-happy-to-hangs-out-with-naomi-wimbourne/
Head of Treasury versus Treasury's Head versus Treasury head.
Place your bets.
I liked it better than the original, though I did have some issues, structurally. It was stunning and despite contemplative pace it didn't drag despite being near 3 hours.
I marked it 3 out of 10 and my wife marked it zero out of ten.
The plot was thin and incoherent.
The pace was snail.
Some of the computer generated images were amateur.
Lost time we will never get back.
And I'm unconvinced someone who thinks Caesar was a better general than Hannibal should run around criticising the intellectual capacity of other people.