Remarkable goings-on in Australia, with the Deputy PM and 6 Senators all disqualified. It doesn't seem likely to have strategic significance, so far as I can make out, since the Senators are all replaced by the next on the party lists and the Deputy PM's seat looks safe for the Government, or just possibly the far-right party who wouldn't be likely to support the opposition. But I'm not well-informed about Aussie affairs so may be misreading it.
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...
That's a ridiculous comment. Labour was extremely fortunate that the Liberals were in a similarly dire position in 1931 (indeed, probably an even worse one), in no small part down to Lloyd George's unforeseeable illness. Only two years earlier, the Liberals polled 24% (despite only contesting about five-sixths of the seats). Had events worked out differently, it's quite possible that the Liberals could have capitalised on Labour's division and reoccupied the ground they lost in 1918, pushing Labour out to the far left and killing them forever as a party of government.
I detect a strong hint of animus in this piece from TSE. I too regret the defeat of Nick Clegg especially, as we now know, he was trying to deal with a serious illness affecting one of his children. I imagine the last thing he wanted or needed was an election then but that's democracy and he showed the same dignity in defeat as he had after 2015.
As for O'Mara, like many others I'm less concerned by what someone said online 12-15 years ago when he was in his early 20s. Yes, it was unpleasant then but everyone has a right to mature and change - after all, some people change their political views completely from their teens and early 20s to their late 20s. No one should have to be consistent all their lives - part of human evolution is to change.
There is the much more sinister aspect of agents of Paul Staines (or whoever) trawling back through years of online comments to try and dig up some dirt on individuals. I wonder if CCHQ tell Conservative PPCs to delete their online history and re-invent themselves with new online persona emphasising their local charitable activities and support for the Conservative Party. This do we become a political class of the bland and the boring of people too scared of the Guidos of this world to have an opinion and too scared of the vengeance of the Party to mouth even a syllable of dissent - the Outer Party indeed ?
As to what O'Mara has or has not said more recently (and I mean within the last 5 years or so) we have what may or may not have happened in a Sheffield nightclub and other comments alleged to have been made and presumably Labour's internal process will examine those and quite rightly there's a burden of proof involved.
As to the selection process itself, the circumstances of 2017 were unusual - many of those who had fought (and for the vast majority of candidates there's not much fighting involved as they have no chance of success) in 2015 simply got the nomination papers filled out again. In my part of the world, the LD candidates for East and West Ham were selected at a joint meeting. The Conservative candidate appeared online before the announcement and of course Stephen Timms was in place to defend his hyper-marginal 34,000 majority.
I don't know the strength and numbers of Labour activists in Sheffield - as has been mused elsewhere, perhaps Hallam was not seen as a viable target. I remember Labour candidates standing in 1997 who suddenly found themselves MPs on the back of the Blair landslide and who had made no provision for the eventuality.
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...
That's a ridiculous comment. Labour was extremely fortunate that the Liberals were in a similarly dire position in 1931 (indeed, probably an even worse one), in no small part down to Lloyd George's unforeseeable illness. Only two years earlier, the Liberals polled 24% (despite only contesting about five-sixths of the seats). Had events worked out differently, it's quite possible that the Liberals could have capitalised on Labour's division and reoccupied the ground they lost in 1918, pushing Labour out to the far left and killing them forever as a party of government.
But they didn't, so in hindsight we can judge its medium term effects. The new blood in the PLP after 1935 made it far more effective than had it hobbled on with the 1920s generation, giving us the generation who made 1945.
Remarkable goings-on in Australia, with the Deputy PM and 6 Senators all disqualified. It doesn't seem likely to have strategic significance, so far as I can make out, since the Senators are all replaced by the next on the party lists and the Deputy PM's seat looks safe for the Government, or just possibly the far-right party who wouldn't be likely to support the opposition. But I'm not well-informed about Aussie affairs so may be misreading it.
Given the Coalition only has a majority of 1 in the House of Representatives if the lose Joyce's seat in a by election that could make things difficult for Turnbull.
On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To develop my theme further:
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
Tory members now have the final say on the next leader (provides like Leadsom one of the final 2 does not withdraw) and local candidates and are the pool for local council candidates and also get invites to social events with party figures. Though I agree conference needs to give them a broader say certainly.
I am very disappointed that my own party did not have a leadership contest. Cable would probably have won, but there did need to be discussion over direction. That was ignored. I would have voted Lamb again if he had stood. His Brexit policy is more nuanced, and his wider policies much more coherent for a revival of the LDs.
A sage assessment.
I suspect Cable will need to be replaced in a post-Brexit world.
The next general election is still likely to be held when we are in a transition period or still negotiating a FTA.
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?
Basically they split three ways:
1) A group willing to consider tariffs, led by former HS and AG Sir John a Simon, which wanted an electoral pact with the Conservatives and repudiated the party's pro-Labour stance;
2) A core group based on the traditional structures, supportive of free trade and committed to working with any party that could provide stable government - as the official leader, Lloyd George was ill at key moments this was led more or less by accident in 1931 by Sir Herbert Samuel, former Home Secretary and Commissioner for Palestine;
3) A third group led by Lloyd George, which consisted of him, his son Gwilym, daughter Megan and a random cousin whose name I forget, which split off in a fit of pique because Samuel didn't consult him on every little detail.
Most of the Liberal seats in 1931 and 1935 were held in pacts with the Conservatives - when that was withdrawn from the Samuelite faction in 1935 17 of the 31 lost their seats including Samuel himself and Isaac Foot. The National Liberals of course remained officially a separate party until 1965, but they never (or at least so far as I am aware) faced Conservative opposition in elections. There were exceptions - Clement Davies rejoined the Liberals and was party leader from 1945-1956, while Gwilym Lloyd George ultimately joined the Conservatives and became Home Secretary in the 1950s.
So 1931 was the last time until certainly 1976 and arguably 1997 that the Liberals played a significant role in British politics. It is not difficult to see why!
Its interesting how many leading Liberals with Conservative tendencies held the HS position. Churchill being another.
There was also talk in 1987 that if a Con-All coalition needed to be formed then David Steel would demand the HS position (with Owen as FS).
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...
That's a ridiculous comment. Labour was extremely fortunate that the Liberals were in a similarly dire position in 1931 (indeed, probably an even worse one), in no small part down to Lloyd George's unforeseeable illness. Only two years earlier, the Liberals polled 24% (despite only contesting about five-sixths of the seats). Had events worked out differently, it's quite possible that the Liberals could have capitalised on Labour's division and reoccupied the ground they lost in 1918, pushing Labour out to the far left and killing them forever as a party of government.
But they didn't, so in hindsight we can judge its medium term effects. The new blood in the PLP after 1935 made it far more effective than had it hobbled on with the 1920s generation, giving us the generation who made 1945.
What 'new blood' after 1935? Apart from those who came in (or back) in 1935, there were only by-elections. Only one members of Attlee's cabinet was first elected to the Commons after 1931 - Bevin - and he doesn't really count as he was already a towering figure in the Labour movement, just on the union side.
I think your cause and effect is considerably affected by wishful thinking. 1945 happened overwhelmingly because of factors external to Westminster and there's a good chance that had Labour been stronger in the 1930s, Attlee would have won an even greater majority in 1945 (which wouldn't have mattered much), and 1950 (which would).
If she's starting as she means to go on, expect trouble, quickly, in New Zealand.
When Auckland has a median property price of $900k and median income of $45k how else could one describe it other than a blatant failure?
The housing market and capitalism are not the same thing.
The key reason the housing market doesn't respond to pure capitalism is because there are non-economic reasons why people choose to live where they do. So house prices don't just match incomes.
Take my case. I live in Cannock, which is very cheap. But I may have to move further south if my father falls ill. That would mean finding a job - and it might have to be a worse paid job to live in a more expensive area. Is that capitalism? No. Is it necessary? Yes.
Or the Lake District. If that were judged on economic activity alone it would be one of the cheapest places in Europe to live. Instead, second homes make it expensive. Is that capitalism? Not really.
And in London - capitalist logic would say a great many businesses should move to say Newcastle, or Glasgow, or Bradford. But do they? No, because the workforce there doesn't match what is needed, or the costs of relocating are too great, or the owners/staff simply like living in London.
Now all this shows where the market fails. Totally agree. But to extrapolate from that and say that because one key market where capital is not the key consideration has failed means capitalism is a complete failure is stretching it too far. That really does go beyond reality into ideology.
And of course the ideology of socialism that is proferred as an alternative is one that has failed, utterly, totally, in every way and every place it has been tried. Venezuela being only the latest and not even the most disastrous example.
Its interesting how many leading Liberals with Conservative tendencies held the HS position. Churchill being another.
There was also talk in 1987 that if a Con-All coalition needed to be formed then David Steel would demand the HS position (with Owen as FS).
Yet Clegg was happy with the non-job of DPM.
I wouldn't read too much into that. The job of HS was quite junior in the early 20th century, and in any case ministerial rank was more often decided by the personality of the office holder than by the status of the office. For example in 1924-29 the second man in the cabinet was Minister of Health (at his own request) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924-25 wasn't even a Unionist.
HS also happened to be one of the few offices open to a young Liberal under Asquith, as Lloyd George had locked out the Treasury, Grey the FO, Haldane, Seely and then Asquith himself the war office - and in a smaller cabinet that didn't leave much for the ambitious younger politician to make a mark. So the likes of McKenna, Samuel, Churchill often ended up there for a time by default. (Simon indeed was made a special cabinet member as Attorney-General when he was first promoted in I think 1912).
In more modern times, it's just an office nobody particularly wants and therefore an easy sell on party terms. If the Alliance had tried to demand the Treasury and the FO, they would have been told to FO!
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Mr. Meeks, got to say that post does read rather ironically.
"Those on the other side are unconcerned at the huge division in the country, those bounders!" It's a bit Thals and Kaleds.
The graph the other day indicated more Remain voters are shifting towards preferring no departure at all, reducing the number who want a so-called Soft Brexit. Polarisation has to involve two parties (as it were), after all.
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?
That was the only election Mosley's New Party stood in.
I thought there were four liberals fighting in that election, and two labours, plus Mosley's group (which was mostly ex-Labour).
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Tell you what, let's not Brexit to keep them happy eh?
In other news, poll after poll shows ManU fans are largely unreconciled to Man City having become a better team than theirs....
Its interesting how many leading Liberals with Conservative tendencies held the HS position. Churchill being another.
There was also talk in 1987 that if a Con-All coalition needed to be formed then David Steel would demand the HS position (with Owen as FS).
Yet Clegg was happy with the non-job of DPM.
I wouldn't read too much into that. The job of HS was quite junior in the early 20th century, and in any case ministerial rank was more often decided by the personality of the office holder than by the status of the office. For example in 1924-29 the second man in the cabinet was Minister of Health (at his own request) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924-25 wasn't even a Unionist.
HS also happened to be one of the few offices open to a young Liberal under Asquith, as Lloyd George had locked out the Treasury, Grey the FO, Haldane, Seely and then Asquith himself the war office - and in a smaller cabinet that didn't leave much for the ambitious younger politician to make a mark. So the likes of McKenna, Samuel, Churchill often ended up there for a time by default. (Simon indeed was made a special cabinet member as Attorney-General when he was first promoted in I think 1912).
In more modern times, it's just an office nobody particularly wants and therefore an easy sell on party terms. If the Alliance had tried to demand the Treasury and the FO, they would have been told to FO!
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Mr. Meeks, got to say that post does read rather ironically.
"Those on the other side are unconcerned at the huge division in the country, those bounders!" It's a bit Thals and Kaleds.
The graph the other day indicated more Remain voters are shifting towards preferring no departure at all, reducing the number who want a so-called Soft Brexit. Polarisation has to involve two parties (as it were), after all.
This is always the problem for those who have the steering wheel, not for those grumbling in the back seat.
Your second point illustrates mine. Don't you wonder why those Remain voters who previously were prepared to go along with Brexit are changing their minds and hardening their opinions?
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
I detect a strong hint of animus in this piece from TSE. I too regret the defeat of Nick Clegg especially, as we now know, he was trying to deal with a serious illness affecting one of his children. I imagine the last thing he wanted or needed was an election then but that's democracy and he showed the same dignity in defeat as he had after 2015.
As for O'Mara, like many others I'm less concerned by what someone said online 12-15 years ago when he was in his early 20s. Yes, it was unpleasant then but everyone has a right to mature and change - after all, some people change their political views completely from their teens and early 20s to their late 20s. No one should have to be consistent all their lives - part of human evolution is to change.
There is the much more sinister aspect of agents of Paul Staines (or whoever) trawling back through years of online comments to try and dig up some dirt on individuals. I wonder if CCHQ tell Conservative PPCs to delete their online history and re-invent themselves with new online persona emphasising their local charitable activities and support for the Conservative Party. This do we become a political class of the bland and the boring of people too scared of the Guidos of this world to have an opinion and too scared of the vengeance of the Party to mouth even a syllable of dissent - the Outer Party indeed ?
As to what O'Mara has or has not said more recently (and I mean within the last 5 years or so) we have what may or may not have happened in a Sheffield nightclub and other comments alleged to have been made and presumably Labour's internal process will examine those and quite rightly there's a burden of proof involved.
As to the selection process itself, the circumstances of 2017 were unusual - many of those who had fought (and for the vast majority of candidates there's not much fighting involved as they have no chance of success) in 2015 simply got the nomination papers filled out again. In my part of the world, the LD candidates for East and West Ham were selected at a joint meeting. The Conservative candidate appeared online before the announcement and of course Stephen Tim .
I cannot say I find Staines’ trawling that sinister, even though like others I agree what people said a long time ago is not usually particularly relevant. Staines comes across as an arse himself, but he is only digging up what is there and if it is patently ridiculous and the only things that are found are from a long time ago, it would very quickly be dismissed and he’d soon stop bothering to go the effort. With O’Mara, the man quit the committee he was on, and it swiftly became apparently it was because he was acting like a hypocrite because he had done things more recently, and was justifying himself on a partisan basis. Had he done neither of those things, I doubt he would have faced more than token pressure to quit the committee.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Tell you what, let's not Brexit to keep them happy eh?
In other news, poll after poll shows ManU fans are largely unreconciled to Man City having become a better team than theirs....
Leave supporters have evinced no interest in seeking to address concerns of enough Remain voters to form a consensus. As you have just so neatly shown, Leave supporters lack the intellectual curiosity to try.
If she's starting as she means to go on, expect trouble, quickly, in New Zealand.
I have said before she is Corbyn in a skirt.
She has a point. Capitalism as a concept may not have failed but the variation in use in the western world since 2008 isn't working for a large number of people. No one is arguing for a Stalinist planned economy but simply a recognition of and willingness to address the issue of the social problems the failed and failing model is causing.
Ardern is simply asking the not unreasonable question as to who benefits from the surpluses built up by National. That's not saying there should be deficits but rather that surpluses should be the opportunity to give something back.
Over here, Hammond is still talking the "balancing the budget" talk but the truth is he'd have got a lot further raising taxes as well as cutting spending. His and his predecessor's unwillingness to raise higher levels of taxation have meant the boost to reducring the deficit from economic activity and tax receipts has been lessened.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
This is a problem for those setting the direction, not those who are unhappy with it.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together. If we remain without another vote there will be ructions, and if we remain with another vote there will be somewhat smaller ructions.
You speak of those with the steering wheel, but in a negotiation that's both parties. If some ardent Remain voters are seen as siding with the EU against the UK, their opposite numbers on the Leave side will then take their own position not as merely supporting a referendum result but standing up for Britain against a foreign power and those UK citizens who show preference for Brussels over London. [NB I'm not saying either stance is correct in its assumptions, merely that this is how some do/will see things].
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?
Nick Griffin went to Cambridge.
Being able to pass exams does not guarantee intelligence or common-sense, let alone any sense of morality.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together. If we remain without another vote there will be ructions, and if we remain with another vote there will be somewhat smaller ructions.
You speak of those with the steering wheel, but in a negotiation that's both parties. If some ardent Remain voters are seen as siding with the EU against the UK, their opposite numbers on the Leave side will then take their own position not as merely supporting a referendum result but standing up for Britain against a foreign power and those UK citizens who show preference for Brussels over London. [NB I'm not saying either stance is correct in its assumptions, merely that this is how some do/will see things].
The idea implicit in that, that Remain supporters are Quislings who side with the EU, is both wrong and offensive. There are large numbers of Remain voters who were extremely unenthused with the EU. Yet Leave supporters lack any interest in the question why they have failed to persuade those Remain voters to rally behind the decision to Leave.
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?
Nick Griffin went to Cambridge.
Don't tell TSE!!!
(I didn't go to Cambridge, but I worked at the Uni from 2004 to 2007)
£65 grand a year plus expenses must be a hell of an incentive for the lad to cling on for the next few years. If he plays his cards right, he'll be set up for life once he gets his redundo package.
£75k plus expenses.
and 5 years of MP pension accrued is massively valuable too
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?
So you're not able to provide any evidence for your assertion.
Any chance of you posting your LinkedIn showing your work at say GCHQ, SIS DI, or any other UK intelligence/security service?
TSE THE EVIDENCE IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
So post it please.
What? Everything from Snowden & the shadowbrokers dump and all the geek analysis that goes with it?
Just read theregister.co.uk / arstechnica.co.uk / respected tech news site of your choice.
The story of Wannacry is a massive national security f*ckup on both sides of the Atlantic.
Cash strapped security managers at regional NHS trusts getting the blame is ridiculous.
While the malicious code used in Wannacry indeed originated with the spooks, that doesn’t excuse the NHS security managers for failing to patch internet-facing systems.
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...
That's a ridiculous comment. Labour was extremely fortunate that the Liberals were in a similarly dire position in 1931 (indeed, probably an even worse one), in no small part down to Lloyd George's unforeseeable illness. Only two years earlier, the Liberals polled 24% (despite only contesting about five-sixths of the seats). Had events worked out differently, it's quite possible that the Liberals could have capitalised on Labour's division and reoccupied the ground they lost in 1918, pushing Labour out to the far left and killing them forever as a party of government.
But they didn't, so in hindsight we can judge its medium term effects. The new blood in the PLP after 1935 made it far more effective than had it hobbled on with the 1920s generation, giving us the generation who made 1945.
What 'new blood' after 1935? Apart from those who came in (or back) in 1935, there were only by-elections. Only one members of Attlee's cabinet was first elected to the Commons after 1931 - Bevin - and he doesn't really count as he was already a towering figure in the Labour movement, just on the union side.
I think your cause and effect is considerably affected by wishful thinking. 1945 happened overwhelmingly because of factors external to Westminster and there's a good chance that had Labour been stronger in the 1930s, Attlee would have won an even greater majority in 1945 (which wouldn't have mattered much), and 1950 (which would).
For a start Attlee himself, quoting one historian: 'The 1931 result not only had the effect of catapulting Attlee from relative obscurity to the senior ranks of the party, paving the way for his leadership bid in 1935, but also ensured that in the 1935 contest few believed they were being asked to elect a potential Labour prime minister.'
The fact that Attlee's cabinet was mostly elected pre-1931 does not mean much. The question is - why that frontbench and not a different one from people elected before 1931? Because so many other potential candidates did not hold on. Dalton and Morrison both lost their seats in 1931, and would have been more obvious contenders than Attlee if they hadn't - especially in a continuity-MacDonald Labour Party.
Let alone the effect on Labour's ideas from the 1931 crisis.
Where have I alleged that "GCHQ developed WannaCry." ?
I haven't.
You've either misunderstood what I've said, which given the technical complexity is understandable - or understood what I've said and intentionally misrepresented it.
If it's the former, then I genuinely apologize, but I've indicated where you can go to read up and educate yourself. You've chosen not to.
I'm assuming the latter and therefore I'm not going to waste any more time engaging with your trolling.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Yet of the great offices, Home Secretary has long been regarded as the poisoned chalice, the thankless task. Trying to be a liberal Home Secretary in a Conservative-dominated Government would be the ultimate purgatory and Nick was well aware of that.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
That leads to two immediate questions.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
Accidentally mistaken identity, perhaps - or have I not found it?
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
Mr. Meeks, indeed, which is why bitterness and division may well rise.
On an earlier post you made, to someone else, May made a critical mistake (I realise this might be difficult to believe) when she didn't stake out an initial position trying to bring people together.
She also should've put Boris in a sack and thrown him in the Thames, but that's another story.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
That leads to two immediate questions.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
She didn’t study maths. It was a joke reply to someone suggesting that, as the current Home Secretary doesn’t don’t understand encryption a Labour government could do better.
Where have I alleged that "GCHQ developed WannaCry." ?
I haven't.
You've either misunderstood what I've said, which given the technical complexity is understandable - or understood what I've said and intentionally misrepresented it.
If it's the former, then I genuinely apologize, but I've indicated where you can go to read up and educate yourself. You've chosen not to.
I'm assuming the latter and therefore I'm not going to waste any more time engaging with your trolling.
Where have I alleged that "GCHQ developed WannaCry." ?
This morning at 6.28am you wrote
Nope.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.>
Then at 7.53am in response to my question of 'Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?' you replied with
Even the way you've referred to it wasn't as evidence though. You just said it most likely was developed by the nsa ergo it was gchqs fault too because of the way they work. I'm prepared to believe a lot about both those organisations, but your own accusations toward them don't seem to be that confident.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Tell you what, let's not Brexit to keep them happy eh?
In other news, poll after poll shows ManU fans are largely unreconciled to Man City having become a better team than theirs....
Leave supporters have evinced no interest in seeking to address concerns of enough Remain voters to form a consensus. As you have just so neatly shown, Leave supporters lack the intellectual curiosity to try.
I don't believe any side- neither remainers/leavers or the EU/Westminster really has any genuine interest in reaching out to the other. The opposing sides just want to kick lumps out of each other, to satisfy their own interests. Remainers want to remain, and leavers want to leave, and reaching out to the enemy means compromising their sacred positions.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
That leads to two immediate questions.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
She didn’t study maths. It was a joke reply to someone suggesting that, as the current Home Secretary doesn’t don’t understand encryption a Labour government could do better.
Mr. Meeks, indeed, which is why bitterness and division may well rise.
On an earlier post you made, to someone else, May made a critical mistake (I realise this might be difficult to believe) when she didn't stake out an initial position trying to bring people together.
She also should've put Boris in a sack and thrown him in the Thames, but that's another story.
Another Leaver who advocates violence
Dave should have done that before the referendum, would have saved us all a lot of grief.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Mr. Meeks, indeed, which is why bitterness and division may well rise.
On an earlier post you made, to someone else, May made a critical mistake (I realise this might be difficult to believe) when she didn't stake out an initial position trying to bring people together.
She also should've put Boris in a sack and thrown him in the Thames, but that's another story.
I recall there being a fair amount of dissension on the appointment of the three stooges in the first place.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
That leads to two immediate questions.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
Accidentally mistaken identity, perhaps - or have I not found it?
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. It is the case that ultras are working very hard to drive as many as possible to their positions on the extremes.
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
Hope you had a good cruise.
I like the idea of you speaking for the whole country but putting that to one side we bump up against the problem of the bill. If there is a "public mood", would you say it's for leaving without paying a penny or leaving but paying a token amount (£10 bn say) ?
If, as you argue, we all want the whole sorry business to be concluded as soon as possible, perhaps we should just send Barnier a cheque for £100 billion and have done with it ? That should move us on to the trade business fairly swiftly.
I'm sure Conservative backbenchers can go and sell that to their constituents.
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
That leads to two immediate questions.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
She didn’t study maths. It was a joke reply to someone suggesting that, as the current Home Secretary doesn’t don’t understand encryption a Labour government could do better.
Cheers :-). My bad, then.
I was going to edit to add a smiley, but for some reason the edit button took the early morning off today.
As you say, if she’d studied maths at Cambridge we’d expect her to be able to do simple sums in response to a journalist’s questioning.
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Yet of the great offices, Home Secretary has long been regarded as the poisoned chalice, the thankless task. Trying to be a liberal Home Secretary in a Conservative-dominated Government would be the ultimate purgatory and Nick was well aware of that.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
That's probably all true. Nonetheless, it was a naive error by the Lib Dems to secure neither any of the spending departments nor any Great Office (and similarly, it was an understanding of the nature of government that persuaded the Tories to try to bag the lot, given the opportunity). The Lib Dems could have easily argued for, and been given, one of Health or Education and one of the Great Offices, though that probably would have had to have been the Home Office as the Treasury and FO were probably out of the question for different reasons.
However, simply managing the HO reasonably competently and not allowing more authoritarian tendencies would have been a result from a liberal viewpoint.
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Yet of the great offices, Home Secretary has long been regarded as the poisoned chalice, the thankless task. Trying to be a liberal Home Secretary in a Conservative-dominated Government would be the ultimate purgatory and Nick was well aware of that.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
I understand, and agree about the risks of being Home Sec, but still think ‘just’ DPM was a mistake. If Hague could have been persauded to go to the Lords the FO would have been the best bet. However, we are where we are.
If, as you argue, we all want the whole sorry business to be concluded as soon as possible, perhaps we should just send Barnier a cheque for £100 billion and have done with it ? That should move us on to the trade business fairly swiftly.
NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?
Nick Griffin went to Cambridge.
Being able to pass exams does not guarantee intelligence or common-sense, let alone any sense of morality.
Being able to pass exams, particularly in the 1970s in the days before resits and multiple-guess questions, does guarantee a certain degree of intelligence. I agree on the other two points but that wasn't in question.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. It is the case that ultras are working very hard to drive as many as possible to their positions on the extremes.
I don't see much evidence of so-called Leave moderates trying to herd as many as possible towards the centre. Far from it. Their silence at all the most disgraceful Leave extremist outrages has been telling.
Mr. Herdson, ha, we called them multiple guess too.
Because I have a memory for lists, I once memorised a couple of hundred questions and answers for a biopsychology exam. Forgot most of it, though the corpus pedunculatum[sp] is larger in insects that are more social.
On resits, exams are sometimes horrendously mismarked. When I did Religious Studies for A-level we had three exams per year. The first I got an A, which was slightly better than expected. For exams 2 and 3 I was given a D and an E... which magically became a B and C upon resit. Unfortunately, I couldn't resit the final two exams (bit logistically difficult when you've left) which lowered my overall grade [I suspect they were similarly mismarked].
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Yet of the great offices, Home Secretary has long been regarded as the poisoned chalice, the thankless task. Trying to be a liberal Home Secretary in a Conservative-dominated Government would be the ultimate purgatory and Nick was well aware of that.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
That's probably all true. Nonetheless, it was a naive error by the Lib Dems to secure neither any of the spending departments nor any Great Office (and similarly, it was an understanding of the nature of government that persuaded the Tories to try to bag the lot, given the opportunity). The Lib Dems could have easily argued for, and been given, one of Health or Education and one of the Great Offices, though that probably would have had to have been the Home Office as the Treasury and FO were probably out of the question for different reasons.
However, simply managing the HO reasonably competently and not allowing more authoritarian tendencies would have been a result from a liberal viewpoint.
A shame really that the LDs didn't take the HO. In that case, no rise of Theresa May on the basis of her (alleged) competence at the HO, a more liberal HO and the possibility of effecting real change. A missed opportunity for the LDs and the Conservatives.
I always thought Clegg made a serious mistake in not having of the Great Offices, which by 2010 included Home Secretary. Hague was always going to the FO and I’m sure there was no way Cameron would have given anyone but GO the Treasury. However, as far as I’m aware he didn’t owe May anything. However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Yet of the great offices, Home Secretary has long been regarded as the poisoned chalice, the thankless task. Trying to be a liberal Home Secretary in a Conservative-dominated Government would be the ultimate purgatory and Nick was well aware of that.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
That's probably all true. Nonetheless, it was a naive error by the Lib Dems to secure neither any of the spending departments nor any Great Office (and similarly, it was an understanding of the nature of government that persuaded the Tories to try to bag the lot, given the opportunity). The Lib Dems could have easily argued for, and been given, one of Health or Education and one of the Great Offices, though that probably would have had to have been the Home Office as the Treasury and FO were probably out of the question for different reasons.
However, simply managing the HO reasonably competently and not allowing more authoritarian tendencies would have been a result from a liberal viewpoint.
A shame really that the LDs didn't take the HO. In that case, no rise of Theresa May on the basis of her (alleged) competence at the HO, a more liberal HO and the possibility of effecting real change. A missed opportunity for the LDs and the Conservatives.
I'm not one of Theresa May's fans but she was very liberal as Home Secretary.
She championed Same Sex Marriage and reformed stop and search, which disproportionately targeted black males.
She also did things to help end modern day slavery.
F1: reminds me, I did, with my early bets, back Raikkonen each way at 9 to 'win' FP1. Other bets include 5 each way on Verstappen winning the race, and 13 each way on Raikkonen getting pole. Worth noting my last early bets (USA) all failed, although two were struck with misfortune (Ricciardo DNF and Verstappen penalty).
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Do any of the 80% in the middle have any good ideas about solving the Irish border question?
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
Hope you had a good cruise.
I like the idea of you speaking for the whole country but putting that to one side we bump up against the problem of the bill. If there is a "public mood", would you say it's for leaving without paying a penny or leaving but paying a token amount (£10 bn say) ?
If, as you argue, we all want the whole sorry business to be concluded as soon as possible, perhaps we should just send Barnier a cheque for £100 billion and have done with it ? That should move us on to the trade business fairly swiftly.
I'm sure Conservative backbenchers can go and sell that to their constituents.
Yes thank you - my wife and I had a excellent cruise to the Western Med and Aegean with perfect weather, calm seas, and no one talking Brexit.
The bill is the big question that no one, and I mean no one, has quantified yet and so it is a circular argument with no ending. I think it should be referred to an International Court for arbitration but I do not know the mechanisms for that.
However, if we carry on with extreme remainers and leavers both knocking ten bells out of each other there will be no good outcome.
The constant cutting and pasting of views on both sides of the arguments has become so tedious and frankly non productive.
Theresa May has come under fierce criticism and I do not think she is perfect by a long way but there is no one on either side in the political establishments here in the UK or in Europe that seems to be a grown up trying to resolve this most complex of issues.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. It is the case that ultras are working very hard to drive as many as possible to their positions on the extremes.
I don't see much evidence of so-called Leave moderates trying to herd as many as possible towards the centre. Far from it. Their silence at all the most disgraceful Leave extremist outrages has been telling.
Leaving the field open to the ultras has been a failing, I wouldn’t dispute that, indeed I didn’t refer to leave moderates at all, so I think you meant to reply to a different comment.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Isn't that the problem though.
The instructions the voters gave the government are unobtainable and unrealistic?
Such as leaving the single market & customs union and not having any disruption or economic damage?
80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people.
That's the problem.
Respecting the instructions of the people makes getting on with life very difficult.
Wanna fly away on holiday in 2 years? Made very difficult.
Wanna build cars? Made very difficult.
Wanna hire immigrant workers? Made very difficult.
Leavers who fail to recognise the enormity of the problem contribute to the hardening of attitudes
I think most of us do realise the enormity of the problem. As Sandpit says, it's the headbangers on both sides who are the problem here, not the vast majority of people who want some kind of sensible compromise to be reached.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
I think most of us do realise the enormity of the problem. As Sandpit says, it's the headbangers on both sides who are the problem here, not the vast majority of people who want some kind of sensible compromise to be reached.
If you realised the enormity of the problem, you would also realise why there is a lack of sensible compromise.
The electorate voted for infinite cake and the continued eating thereof. No sensible compromise can be found to meet that desire.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Do any of the 80% in the middle have any good ideas about solving the Irish border question?
Many probably do. ‘The EU can tell us what will happen and that’s that because all is doomed’ and ‘We can achieve nirvana through sheer force of will of Brexit’ folks certainly don’t because anyone with such a fixed view cannot even conceive of other solutions - when as it is both praised and condemned for, the EU is very good at coming up with creative solutions to intractable issues. Not always long lasting or sufficient, but very good at coming up with creative solutions to keep things moving, at some level of pace. Between us and them something will be possible.
Mr. Eagles, if a vote to leave led to unobtainable instructions then either the referendum should never have been called or the campaigns should have each borne resemblance to reality.
Cameron's hubris and complacency over the referendum coupled with a failure to recognise you can't triangulate a binary choice (trying to play off sceptics against single currency types) in a referendum reflects poorly on him. It's a shame, because in many ways he was a rather good PM (and spot on with the migration approach to Syria, unlike Merkel's madness).
That said, the electorate also voted for parties promising a referendum on Lisbon. That deceit played a large part in the more recent vote, and, I think, contributes to the 1:7 Leave voters who would be unsurprised if we end up staying.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
Remainers, meanwhile, have done everything they possibly can to listen to the concerns of people who voted leave, empathise with them, and try to understand their reasons for doing so...
The Country is divided but most just want the process to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
+1
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Isn't that the problem though.
The instructions the voters gave the government are unobtainable and unrealistic?
Such as leaving the single market & customs union and not having any disruption or economic damage?
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
F1: reminds me, I did, with my early bets, back Raikkonen each way at 9 to 'win' FP1. Other bets include 5 each way on Verstappen winning the race, and 13 each way on Raikkonen getting pole. Worth noting my last early bets (USA) all failed, although two were struck with misfortune (Ricciardo DNF and Verstappen penalty).
How many places are your e/w bets paying, and at what fraction of the odds?
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
It will be entertaining (although not helpful) when a majority of prominent Leavers declare "this is not the Leave I voted for" and are presented with "52% mate, can't argue with that..."
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Mr. Eagles, if a vote to leave led to unobtainable instructions then either the referendum should never have been called or the campaigns should have each borne resemblance to reality.
Cameron's hubris and complacency over the referendum coupled with a failure to recognise you can't triangulate a binary choice (trying to play off sceptics against single currency types) in a referendum reflects poorly on him. It's a shame, because in many ways he was a rather good PM (and spot on with the migration approach to Syria, unlike Merkel's madness).
That said, the electorate also voted for parties promising a referendum on Lisbon. That deceit played a large part in the more recent vote, and, I think, contributes to the 1:7 Leave voters who would be unsurprised if we end up staying.
The fault lies with the Leave campaign and their have cake and eat it approach.
Given the focus Vote Leave had on immigration, it made impossible for Theresa May (and Boris & Gove) offer the Norway option.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Not all Leavers believed any leave was a good leave inthe first place, hence there being such risk attached. If any leave, no matter how calamaitous, was acceptable to get away from the EU, it would not have been such a difficult decision for so many people. I’d have been comfortable with a second referendum to confirm the position once a type of leave had been established but of course with A50 already triggered that’s not really viable even if politically things changed to make it happen.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Do any of the 80% in the middle have any good ideas about solving the Irish border question?
I think most of us do realise the enormity of the problem. As Sandpit says, it's the headbangers on both sides who are the problem here, not the vast majority of people who want some kind of sensible compromise to be reached.
If you realised the enormity of the problem, you would also realise why there is a lack of sensible compromise.
The electorate voted for infinite cake and the continued eating thereof. No sensible compromise can be found to meet that desire.
I voted to leave the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. No cake was mentioned on the ballot paper, nor did I expect to receive any.
Perhaps it would help if you "realised the enormity of the problem" of leaving is part and parcel of why some of us voted that way. Because we were uncomfortable with just how much sovereignty had been ceded to a largely undemocratic and unaccountable foreign power. The difficulties posed by leaving demonstrate this very well.
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Oh, wait...
It was within their power to make that point ignore the referendum if they wanted. Few did - and any MPs who did not vote against implementing it are now kind of stuck in that position without a GE or other referendum to give cover to any change in position.
Indeed so. 80% of us just to want get on with life and for the government to respect the instructions of the people. A very noisy 10% on either side are dominating the conversation to the detriment of everyone else.
Do any of the 80% in the middle have any good ideas about solving the Irish border question?
This sums up the problem. Leaving the EU would be probably the biggest change the country has faced for decades yet we have almost no Change Control in place. The people were asked if they liked being in the EU and by a small majority said no. Since then the government has acheived no consensus about any change either internally or with the EU.
My experience is that if the team starts off badly then it will end badly unless you change the team.
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Oh, wait...
Or compounded the confusion by making it legally non-binding yet constantly saying 'the government will implement the result of the referendum' in the House before the referendum...
The BBC clearly embarrassed that progress has all but stalled.
The thing about misleading charts like that is I presume it is hard to pretend it is an accident it is misleading - if you just excel it the proportions automatically will be correct, so you have to take active steps to alter things, I would assume, and what reason can there be to explain such?
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
Well there's compassion for your offspring and the general well being of your country. But then again, you're a Leaver.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
I am always wary of people assuming future victory on the basis that ‘demographics are on our side’. It might well be the case th younger generations who were so much more pro-EU remain so and lead the fight for rejoining, particularly if Brexit continues to go poorly (though we were due a recession in any case, but there will be an effect), but can such a thing ever be guaranteed? What if even the young do not want to rejoin quite as much if the EU, assuming it even lets us back in, insists on full signing up to the Euro and so on? What if things do not go quite as badly as some of the young currently fear and so resentment continues but fervour for rejoining is not as high?
Of course, what if the older voters (those who will still be alive for any rejoin movement) come to regret their choice more, so it can swing both ways. But the confidence inthe demographics seems a bit too much.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/27/high-court-rules-barnaby-joyce-and-four-others-ineligible-in-dual-citizenship-case
I detect a strong hint of animus in this piece from TSE. I too regret the defeat of Nick Clegg especially, as we now know, he was trying to deal with a serious illness affecting one of his children. I imagine the last thing he wanted or needed was an election then but that's democracy and he showed the same dignity in defeat as he had after 2015.
As for O'Mara, like many others I'm less concerned by what someone said online 12-15 years ago when he was in his early 20s. Yes, it was unpleasant then but everyone has a right to mature and change - after all, some people change their political views completely from their teens and early 20s to their late 20s. No one should have to be consistent all their lives - part of human evolution is to change.
There is the much more sinister aspect of agents of Paul Staines (or whoever) trawling back through years of online comments to try and dig up some dirt on individuals. I wonder if CCHQ tell Conservative PPCs to delete their online history and re-invent themselves with new online persona emphasising their local charitable activities and support for the Conservative Party. This do we become a political class of the bland and the boring of people too scared of the Guidos of this world to have an opinion and too scared of the vengeance of the Party to mouth even a syllable of dissent - the Outer Party indeed ?
As to what O'Mara has or has not said more recently (and I mean within the last 5 years or so) we have what may or may not have happened in a Sheffield nightclub and other comments alleged to have been made and presumably Labour's internal process will examine those and quite rightly there's a burden of proof involved.
As to the selection process itself, the circumstances of 2017 were unusual - many of those who had fought (and for the vast majority of candidates there's not much fighting involved as they have no chance of success) in 2015 simply got the nomination papers filled out again. In my part of the world, the LD candidates for East and West Ham were selected at a joint meeting. The Conservative candidate appeared online before the announcement and of course Stephen Timms was in place to defend his hyper-marginal 34,000 majority.
I don't know the strength and numbers of Labour activists in Sheffield - as has been mused elsewhere, perhaps Hallam was not seen as a viable target. I remember Labour candidates standing in 1997 who suddenly found themselves MPs on the back of the Blair landslide and who had made no provision for the eventuality.
Just read theregister.co.uk / arstechnica.co.uk / respected tech news site of your choice.
The story of Wannacry is a massive national security f*ckup on both sides of the Atlantic.
Cash strapped security managers at regional NHS trusts getting the blame is ridiculous.
It shouldn’t be that hard.
There was also talk in 1987 that if a Con-All coalition needed to be formed then David Steel would demand the HS position (with Owen as FS).
Yet Clegg was happy with the non-job of DPM.
I think your cause and effect is considerably affected by wishful thinking. 1945 happened overwhelmingly because of factors external to Westminster and there's a good chance that had Labour been stronger in the 1930s, Attlee would have won an even greater majority in 1945 (which wouldn't have mattered much), and 1950 (which would).
The key reason the housing market doesn't respond to pure capitalism is because there are non-economic reasons why people choose to live where they do. So house prices don't just match incomes.
Take my case. I live in Cannock, which is very cheap. But I may have to move further south if my father falls ill. That would mean finding a job - and it might have to be a worse paid job to live in a more expensive area. Is that capitalism? No. Is it necessary? Yes.
Or the Lake District. If that were judged on economic activity alone it would be one of the cheapest places in Europe to live. Instead, second homes make it expensive. Is that capitalism? Not really.
And in London - capitalist logic would say a great many businesses should move to say Newcastle, or Glasgow, or Bradford. But do they? No, because the workforce there doesn't match what is needed, or the costs of relocating are too great, or the owners/staff simply like living in London.
Now all this shows where the market fails. Totally agree. But to extrapolate from that and say that because one key market where capital is not the key consideration has failed means capitalism is a complete failure is stretching it too far. That really does go beyond reality into ideology.
And of course the ideology of socialism that is proferred as an alternative is one that has failed, utterly, totally, in every way and every place it has been tried. Venezuela being only the latest and not even the most disastrous example.
HS also happened to be one of the few offices open to a young Liberal under Asquith, as Lloyd George had locked out the Treasury, Grey the FO, Haldane, Seely and then Asquith himself the war office - and in a smaller cabinet that didn't leave much for the ambitious younger politician to make a mark. So the likes of McKenna, Samuel, Churchill often ended up there for a time by default. (Simon indeed was made a special cabinet member as Attorney-General when he was first promoted in I think 1912).
In more modern times, it's just an office nobody particularly wants and therefore an easy sell on party terms. If the Alliance had tried to demand the Treasury and the FO, they would have been told to FO!
I do wish everybody a pleasant weekend.
"Those on the other side are unconcerned at the huge division in the country, those bounders!" It's a bit Thals and Kaleds.
The graph the other day indicated more Remain voters are shifting towards preferring no departure at all, reducing the number who want a so-called Soft Brexit. Polarisation has to involve two parties (as it were), after all.
I thought there were four liberals fighting in that election, and two labours, plus Mosley's group (which was mostly ex-Labour).
In other news, poll after poll shows ManU fans are largely unreconciled to Man City having become a better team than theirs....
However I’ve recently read somewhere that Clegg was offered the Home Office and refused it. Pity!
Your second point illustrates mine. Don't you wonder why those Remain voters who previously were prepared to go along with Brexit are changing their minds and hardening their opinions?
Ardern is simply asking the not unreasonable question as to who benefits from the surpluses built up by National. That's not saying there should be deficits but rather that surpluses should be the opportunity to give something back.
Over here, Hammond is still talking the "balancing the budget" talk but the truth is he'd have got a lot further raising taxes as well as cutting spending. His and his predecessor's unwillingness to raise higher levels of taxation have meant the boost to reducring the deficit from economic activity and tax receipts has been lessened.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together. If we remain without another vote there will be ructions, and if we remain with another vote there will be somewhat smaller ructions.
You speak of those with the steering wheel, but in a negotiation that's both parties. If some ardent Remain voters are seen as siding with the EU against the UK, their opposite numbers on the Leave side will then take their own position not as merely supporting a referendum result but standing up for Britain against a foreign power and those UK citizens who show preference for Brussels over London. [NB I'm not saying either stance is correct in its assumptions, merely that this is how some do/will see things].
Being able to pass exams does not guarantee intelligence or common-sense, let alone any sense of morality.
(I didn't go to Cambridge, but I worked at the Uni from 2004 to 2007)
The fact that Attlee's cabinet was mostly elected pre-1931 does not mean much. The question is - why that frontbench and not a different one from people elected before 1931? Because so many other potential candidates did not hold on. Dalton and Morrison both lost their seats in 1931, and would have been more obvious contenders than Attlee if they hadn't - especially in a continuity-MacDonald Labour Party.
Let alone the effect on Labour's ideas from the 1931 crisis.
Re: @TheScreamingEagles
Where have I alleged that "GCHQ developed WannaCry." ?
I haven't.
You've either misunderstood what I've said, which given the technical complexity is understandable - or understood what I've said and intentionally misrepresented it.
If it's the former, then I genuinely apologize, but I've indicated where you can go to read up and educate yourself. You've chosen not to.
I'm assuming the latter and therefore I'm not going to waste any more time engaging with your trolling.
In the circumstances that those in the political establishment manage to collude with the EU to engineer us staying in the EU, and that must be a possibility, the problem will just not go away as a large number of ordinary people will feel let down by the democratic process and are unlikely to just melt away.
Whether you are for remain or leave, or like me a remainer who now wants us to leave, a solution has to be found that can be accepted by the majority so the Country can move on. I really do not see an acceptable situation where we just smile and tell Junkers we want to be part of his club again and are sorry for any inconvenience our electorate caused to his treasured EU project.
Had he tried to row back on any of the security measures of the Blair/Brown years he'd have been thwarted by the Conservative backbenchers. In a time of terror, there's little hearing for more liberal voices and that's why May fitted in so well.
1 - So why can't Diane Abbott add up?
Even ignoring the series of mathematical faceplants during the Election campaign, allegedly explained by an illness, the number for the cost of a policeman in the 2017 Fully Costed Labour Manifesto needed increasing by about 40% to represent the true cost of a policeman as proposed.
2 - Why is this Applied Mathematics Phd curiously absent from Dr Diane Abbott's resume on eg LinkedIn? It seems to be History Undergrad, then History Masters. This might perhaps explain 1.
Accidentally mistaken identity, perhaps - or have I not found it?
On an earlier post you made, to someone else, May made a critical mistake (I realise this might be difficult to believe) when she didn't stake out an initial position trying to bring people together.
She also should've put Boris in a sack and thrown him in the Thames, but that's another story.
This morning at 6.28am you wrote
Nope.
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.>
Then at 7.53am in response to my question of 'Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?' you replied with
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/
As others pointed out to you
Even the way you've referred to it wasn't as evidence though. You just said it most likely was developed by the nsa ergo it was gchqs fault too because of the way they work. I'm prepared to believe a lot about both those organisations, but your own accusations toward them don't seem to be that confident.
Dave should have done that before the referendum, would have saved us all a lot of grief.
I agree it's probably 10% of ultras on either side shouting at each other. I would actually be very happy with the softest of soft Brexits, even some kind of associate membership, anything really that demonstrates a real transfer of powers back to the UK and an end to ever closer union. But the attitude of some Remain Ultras - I shall mention no names - and the contempt with which they seem to hold those of us who voted the other way - hardens my opinion and drives me further and further to the other side.
I like the idea of you speaking for the whole country but putting that to one side we bump up against the problem of the bill. If there is a "public mood", would you say it's for leaving without paying a penny or leaving but paying a token amount (£10 bn say) ?
If, as you argue, we all want the whole sorry business to be concluded as soon as possible, perhaps we should just send Barnier a cheque for £100 billion and have done with it ? That should move us on to the trade business fairly swiftly.
I'm sure Conservative backbenchers can go and sell that to their constituents.
That statement is uncontroversial for anyone who has been following the tech side of the wannacry story.
As you say, if she’d studied maths at Cambridge we’d expect her to be able to do simple sums in response to a journalist’s questioning.
However, simply managing the HO reasonably competently and not allowing more authoritarian tendencies would have been a result from a liberal viewpoint.
If Hague could have been persauded to go to the Lords the FO would have been the best bet. However, we are where we are.
Because I have a memory for lists, I once memorised a couple of hundred questions and answers for a biopsychology exam. Forgot most of it, though the corpus pedunculatum[sp] is larger in insects that are more social.
On resits, exams are sometimes horrendously mismarked. When I did Religious Studies for A-level we had three exams per year. The first I got an A, which was slightly better than expected. For exams 2 and 3 I was given a D and an E... which magically became a B and C upon resit. Unfortunately, I couldn't resit the final two exams (bit logistically difficult when you've left) which lowered my overall grade [I suspect they were similarly mismarked].
She championed Same Sex Marriage and reformed stop and search, which disproportionately targeted black males.
She also did things to help end modern day slavery.
Respecting the instructions of the people makes getting on with life very difficult.
Wanna fly away on holiday in 2 years? Made very difficult.
Wanna build cars? Made very difficult.
Wanna hire immigrant workers? Made very difficult.
Leavers who fail to recognise the enormity of the problem contribute to the hardening of attitudes
The bill is the big question that no one, and I mean no one, has quantified yet and so it is a circular argument with no ending. I think it should be referred to an International Court for arbitration but I do not know the mechanisms for that.
However, if we carry on with extreme remainers and leavers both knocking ten bells out of each other there will be no good outcome.
The constant cutting and pasting of views on both sides of the arguments has become so tedious and frankly non productive.
Theresa May has come under fierce criticism and I do not think she is perfect by a long way but there is no one on either side in the political establishments here in the UK or in Europe that seems to be a grown up trying to resolve this most complex of issues.
One just despairs
https://twitter.com/gavinboyd2012/status/923633485348331520
You're right in those areas... but on immigration, human rights act, surveillance/snoopers she could hardly be described as very liberal....
The instructions the voters gave the government are unobtainable and unrealistic?
Such as leaving the single market & customs union and not having any disruption or economic damage?
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
The electorate voted for infinite cake and the continued eating thereof. No sensible compromise can be found to meet that desire.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Cameron's hubris and complacency over the referendum coupled with a failure to recognise you can't triangulate a binary choice (trying to play off sceptics against single currency types) in a referendum reflects poorly on him. It's a shame, because in many ways he was a rather good PM (and spot on with the migration approach to Syria, unlike Merkel's madness).
That said, the electorate also voted for parties promising a referendum on Lisbon. That deceit played a large part in the more recent vote, and, I think, contributes to the 1:7 Leave voters who would be unsurprised if we end up staying.
Oh, wait...
Given the focus Vote Leave had on immigration, it made impossible for Theresa May (and Boris & Gove) offer the Norway option.
Perhaps it would help if you "realised the enormity of the problem" of leaving is part and parcel of why some of us voted that way. Because we were uncomfortable with just how much sovereignty had been ceded to a largely undemocratic and unaccountable foreign power. The difficulties posed by leaving demonstrate this very well.
My experience is that if the team starts off badly then it will end badly unless you change the team.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
Of course, what if the older voters (those who will still be alive for any rejoin movement) come to regret their choice more, so it can swing both ways. But the confidence inthe demographics seems a bit too much.