Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
He probably needs the extra pages.
For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit?
I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.
Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
I'm not 100% sure that's a good idea. I like the idea of two different bodies with different electoral cycles. The danger with a single one is that it causes excessive concentration on what happens at the next General Election. An upper chamber on a slightly offset or elongated time horizon, or perhaps one elected in a slightly different way seems like a good idea.
The majority of countries in the world are Unicameral, and most seem to manage fine. This includes some of the most democratic countries as well as some of the least!
Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.
1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country
2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.
3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.
Take back control – renationalise the railways!
Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
The Germans have nationalised fully a quarter of OUR railways (Arriva) – so they more than make up for any private incursions into their own system. Don't feel too sorry for them!
You keep using the word "nationalized". I do not think you know what it means.
I used the word nationalised with an s. I prefer the British English conventional spelling.
In any event, I am using it as a figure of speech. A more precise way is to point out that the German state (DB) runs a quarter of our railways. More than our own state.
Right now, we have a competitive tendering process for franchises. Deutsche Bahn offers to run our railways for lower levels of subsidy than other suppliers.
I have no problem with a nationalised British company also bidding. But it has to be able to do so cheaper than a private company, or indeed, one owned by Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. If the German or French taxpayer wishes to subsidise our railways, we should be enormously grateful, not grouse about it.
Procurement should be on the basis of cost and service, not on the basis of ownership.
Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.
1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country
2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.
3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.
Take back control – renationalise the railways!
Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
The Germans have nationalised fully a quarter of OUR railways (Arriva) – so they more than make up for any private incursions into their own system. Don't feel too sorry for them!
You keep using the word "nationalized". I do not think you know what it means.
I used the word nationalised with an s. I prefer the British English conventional spelling.
In any event, I am using it as a figure of speech. A more precise way is to point out that the German state (DB) runs a quarter of our railways. More than our own state.
Right now, we have a competitive tendering process for franchises. Deutsche Bahn offers to run our railways for lower levels of subsidy than other suppliers.
I have no problem with a nationalised British company also bidding. But it has to be able to do so cheaper than a private company, or indeed, one owned by Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. If the German or French taxpayer wishes to subsidise our railways, we should be enormously grateful, not grouse about it.
Procurement should be on the basis of cost and service, not on the basis of ownership.
Whilst I agree you were bang to rights on the "z" point. You'll have to watch out for that sort of thing in California.
Firstly, the referendum gave the government the mandate to leave the EU and its associated organisations.
Secondly, yes, I would agree that the House of Lords as it is composed and appointed is undemocratic. But it has no mandate at all to halt any form of Brexit since it is not elected in any form -indeed the Liberal element is grossly over-represented as a result of the Coalition. Remoaners should not hide behind the undemocratic House of Lords in its undemocratic bid to cancel the result of a democratic referendum.
The referendum gave it the mandate to leave the EU. The Conservative Party and DUP's electoral victory gave it the option, but not the obligation, to leave - for example - ERASMUS or Gallileo.
We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.
Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
I'm not 100% sure that's a good idea. I like the idea of two different bodies with different electoral cycles. The danger with a single one is that it causes excessive concentration on what happens at the next General Election. An upper chamber on a slightly offset or elongated time horizon, or perhaps one elected in a slightly different way seems like a good idea.
HoL elected a couple of years after each GE, members to serve a maximum of two terms and be elected by STV, the superior multi-member version of AV.
Exactly what powers the HoL should have relative to the HoC is a more vexed question.
We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.
Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
I'm not 100% sure that's a good idea. I like the idea of two different bodies with different electoral cycles. The danger with a single one is that it causes excessive concentration on what happens at the next General Election. An upper chamber on a slightly offset or elongated time horizon, or perhaps one elected in a slightly different way seems like a good idea.
HoL elected a couple of years after each GE, members to serve a maximum of two terms and be elected by STV, the superior multi-member version of AV.
Exactly what powers the HoL should have relative to the HoC is a more vexed question.
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.
Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
I'm not 100% sure that's a good idea. I like the idea of two different bodies with different electoral cycles. The danger with a single one is that it causes excessive concentration on what happens at the next General Election. An upper chamber on a slightly offset or elongated time horizon, or perhaps one elected in a slightly different way seems like a good idea.
HoL elected a couple of years after each GE, members to serve a maximum of two terms and be elected by STV, the superior multi-member version of AV.
Exactly what powers the HoL should have relative to the HoC is a more vexed question.
And the need to look at what the HoL is for, and what powers it has, needs to come before the decision on who goes there and how they are to be chosen.
Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.
1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country
2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.
3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.
Take back control – renationalise the railways!
An 'international laughing stock'? really? It's almost as if you want to talk us down.
The railways in this country are generally doing well: just look at the heavy rail safety record and the unprecedented increase in passengers over the last few years. yes, there are problems - notably with the nationalised Network Rail - but the system, although messy, generally works for passengers, public and the state.
As for East Coast, you may want to look a little deeper into that and the reasons that it's happened. It's not as simple as DOR=good, privatised=bad. For one thing, the nationalised Network Rail hasn't delivered its side of the bargain, meaning that the aggressive (too much so IMO) private bid had no chance of meeting the increase in passengers. IEP will only make matters worse.
We can have nationalised railway systems in the UK. We can have private ones. There are arguments to be had over the 'ownership structure' of the railways, but it's interesting that you did not mention passengers, freight or safety once in your post. It;s almost as if the ideology matters more ...
BTW, anyone wanting to know in detail about Labour's plans for the railways should read the latest edition of Rail magazine, which has an interesting several-page dissection of them.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
I don’t remembee that on the side of a bus!
Well in fairness it would have needed pretty small print so you might have missed it.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
I don’t remembee that on the side of a bus!
It's a couple of days costs.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
The problem was Remain was run by Tories who saw too many problems inside their party if they made a positive case. It was like the Indyref up here. Labour were very reluctant to make a positive case for the UK when it had a Tory led government.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Still doesn't clarify what's in it for the Tories.
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
I don’t remembee that on the side of a bus!
It's a couple of days costs.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Still doesn't clarify what's in it for the Tories.
That they managed to get an opinionated right-wing educationalist onto a panel of lefty establishment types?
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
I don’t remembee that on the side of a bus!
It's a couple of days costs.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
The problem was Remain was run by Tories who saw too many problems inside their party if they made a positive case. It was like the Indyref up here. Labour were very reluctant to make a positive case for the UK when it had a Tory led government.
While I agree that Remain ran a poor campaign ....... nowhere near the standard of 1975..... very often when something like these items were mentioned there was an airy brush off to the effect that ‘we’ll be able to negotiate that’ or words to that effect.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Nope. There is no crime (a hyperbolic attempt to delegitimise criticism) - but being a bumptious pillock with a tendency to make sexist comments means he will likely be a continuing source of negative publicity.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
I don’t remembee that on the side of a bus!
It's a couple of days costs.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
The referendum was a classic head vs heart debate. People dont know what they have til it's gone.
People are very likely to feel cheated, and will cast around for blame. Personally I expect Brexot just to be a bit crap, not a total disaster, but I am not in a trading industry, and stopping foreign workers may well improve my finances.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Still doesn't clarify what's in it for the Tories.
That they managed to get an opinionated right-wing educationalist onto a panel of lefty establishment types?
So what. That's hardly a prize. Surely there are actual thinkers in right wing circles, without having to resort to such a risky self publicist, who carries such an obvious downside.
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
Most of these articles were aired when he stood for Mayor of London. Nobody cared then, nobody will care now.
No, no, you've got that wrong. We have the example of the GE campaign where stories were run about Corbyn's historical idiocies and near treasonous behaviour. The outcome for him was devastating, just devastating.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
Still doesn't clarify what's in it for the Tories.
That they managed to get an opinionated right-wing educationalist onto a panel of lefty establishment types?
So what. That's hardly a prize. Surely there are actual thinkers in right wing circles, without having to resort to such a risky self publicist, who carries such an obvious downside.
But also huge upsides, when seen from the point of view of the minister who appointed him - who gets someone he knows and trusts on the committee, and who shares a belief that all the extreme PC nonsense needs to be got out of our universities as soon as possible.
I (possibly naively) also assume that Mr Young will be told to clear any public statements with the minister in advance, lest he open his mouth to insert his foot.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
On the last point we agree. I very much doubt that we will ever agree on the first. Cameron tried to have his cake and eat it: to win the campaign without irritating the many leavers in his ranks more than was strictly necessary. He misjudged it (just). Whether that turns out to be a good thing for UK plc or not will not be completely clear for the best part of 20 years. I am optimistic but I understand the concerns of those who are not.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view.
David Cameron held a press conference specifically to refute lies told by the Leave campaign.
Made not a jot of difference.
"We have had enough of experts" was the rallying cry, and no amount of truth or logic could defeat the bullshit
It was not, that was a misrepresentation by Faisal Islam. You know that, and you are a liar for perpetuating the misrepresentation, and a moron for thinking you are going to get away with it.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
a second referendum would be completely unlike the first
Indeed. For starters, the first referendum existed.
A peerage for Toby Young must surely be nailed-on.
Novel - but in his case I might support that method of investiture.
If they wanted a widely-respected Tory statesman to combat the PC stuff why not Lord Patten, Chancellor of Oxford Univ? He's able to say largely what he thinks, unlike someone who might still want to brown-nose to become ... pardon me while I vomit ... Lord Young of Dartington.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
I was referring to her GE2017 slogan:
That was the campaign that got an additional 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in an election where they were losing seats? An odd choice indeed. There won't be a second referendum but if there were you better hope that it is not as effective as that was.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
I was referring to her GE2017 slogan:
That was the campaign that got an additional 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in an election where they were losing seats? An odd choice indeed. There won't be a second referendum but if there were you better hope that it is not as effective as that was.
I can picture a UKIP poster now of three smug-looking has-beens Blair, Osborne and Clegg, dressed in morning suits, with the caption “Didn’t you lot get the message last time?”
On topic, this is just the Lib Dem undead in the House of Lords looking for an excuse to obstruct Brexit, in tandem with Labour.
This gives them one.
One can only hope the Conservatives stick together and there are enough sensible crossbenchers to allow the bill to pass.
I imagine the Lords won't obstruct and reject the whole bill (that would be a death sentence for them) but they will fire back several amendments to the Commons.
The obvious ones are beefing up a parliamentary vote on the deal, and further restrictions of the Executive's powers to act under it, with perhaps some extra rights/guarantees thrown in.
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
He probably needs the extra pages.
For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit?
I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
Central Asia, plus those needed for the train there.
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
He probably needs the extra pages.
For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit?
I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
Central Asia, plus those needed for the train there.
You got the train to Central Asia and back. I'd love to know your route.
Much more significantly it is a simple demonstration of the utter ineptitude of the Remain campaign and its total failure to make a positive case for EU membership. If instead of seeking to terrify us all with punishment budgets and a return to the stone age they had made the case that Galileo, Erasmus, the European Patents Court, standardised employment rights, the single passport and other programs were "good things" they just might have got a different result. The last 2 got an occasional mention but really, it was pretty pathetic.
(Snip)
Yeah, right. Anyone trying to make a positive case for the EU, even in a tiny matter, would just get shouted down. I tried it on an area I know a fair amount about - telecoms - and was greeted with idiots arguing with me who were too dim or too busy trolling to even read the links I provided.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
It wouldn't be because people like you don't understand why you lost the first one and are wholly subject to confirmation bias.
You'd be gambling, at best, on differential turnout.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
I was referring to her GE2017 slogan:
That was the campaign that got an additional 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in an election where they were losing seats? An odd choice indeed. There won't be a second referendum but if there were you better hope that it is not as effective as that was.
I can picture a UKIP poster now of three smug-looking has-beens Blair, Osborne and Clegg, dressed in morning suits, with the caption “Didn’t you lot get the message last time?”
Isn't Nick Clegg a Never WIll Be, rather than a Has Been?
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
Most of these articles were aired when he stood for Mayor of London. Nobody cared then, nobody will care now.
No, no, you've got that wrong. We have the example of the GE campaign where stories were run about Corbyn's historical idiocies and near treasonous behaviour. The outcome for him was devastating, just devastating.
It's not ok to re-run historic articles and statements from those on the Left.
It is a public duty to use historic articles and statements from those on the Right to expose them for who they truly are.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
Remainers pay most of the tax already!!
Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
Possibly not. Remainers are younger, so usually light on capital, even if on good incomes. Certainly people in work were more likely to vote Remain than those who are retired. On the other hand they often have substantial student and mortgage debt, while older people often have considerable equity in the form of real estate, and ofyen ISAs and pensions.
Controlling for age is difficult but in raw terms it is very possible that asset poor but high income voters (who have most to fear from the economic fallout of Brexit) have less wealth than low income retirees with capital assets in UK and abroad (who are insulated from the adverse effects of Brexit).
As generally in the UK we tax income and expenditure rather than wealth, it may well be that Leavers are both wealthier, and pay less tax. Indeed many would be net recipients from the Exchequer. I certainly intend to be!
Remainers are either privileged, or young and very naïve.
The House of Peers surely is an anachronism in a nation which has driven the equality agenda far enough to legalise same sex marriage. We need a second chamber, I appreciate the expertise that cross bencher experts in various fields bring. But party appointees given Ermine for "services to politics"? Its not "to politics" its to "the party".
There has to be a better way of doing things. An elected second chamber proportionally elected from GE national percentages plus an appointed star chamber of experts selected by commission who serve a fixed term. Something like that. And far far fewer members. A quarter of what we have.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
It wouldn't be because people like you don't understand why you lost the first one and are wholly subject to confirmation bias.
You'd be gambling, at best, on differential turnout.
Perhaps people like you don't understand why you won? It wasn't because 52% of the population has nightmares about joining the Euro.
The Toby Young appointment is now providing an opportunity to trawl through Boris Johnson’s oeuvre for worse comments. What will millennials make of this?
Most of these articles were aired when he stood for Mayor of London. Nobody cared then, nobody will care now.
No, no, you've got that wrong. We have the example of the GE campaign where stories were run about Corbyn's historical idiocies and near treasonous behaviour. The outcome for him was devastating, just devastating.
It's not ok to re-run historic articles and statements from those on the Left.
It is a public duty to use historic articles and statements from those on the Right to expose them for who they truly are.
And it doesn't work for either side. Boris and Corbyn, they both sailed on unruffled.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Take it out of the £350million/week, surely the NHS doesn't need all of it?
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
I was referring to her GE2017 slogan:
That was the campaign that got an additional 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in an election where they were losing seats? An odd choice indeed. There won't be a second referendum but if there were you better hope that it is not as effective as that was.
I can picture a UKIP poster now of three smug-looking has-beens Blair, Osborne and Clegg, dressed in morning suits, with the caption “Didn’t you lot get the message last time?”
Isn't Nick Clegg a Never WIll Be, rather than a Has Been?
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
Remainers pay most of the tax already!!
Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
Possibly not. Remainers are younger, so usually light on capital, even if on good incomes. Certainly people in work were more likely to vote Remain than those who are retired. On the other hand they often have substantial student and mortgage debt, while older people often have considerable equity in the form of real estate, and ofyen ISAs and pensions.
Controlling for age is difficult but in raw terms it is very possible that asset poor but high income voters (who have most to fear from the economic fallout of Brexit) have less wealth than low income retirees with capital assets in UK and abroad (who are insulated from the adverse effects of Brexit).
As generally in the UK we tax income and expenditure rather than wealth, it may well be that Leavers are both wealthier, and pay less tax. Indeed many would be net recipients from the Exchequer. I certainly intend to be!
Remainers are either privileged, or young and very naïve.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
It was not, that was a misrepresentation by Faisal Islam.
You can try and deny it all you like, but it will be Gove's political epitaph
You know it. I know it. He knows it.
It really won't.
My resolution for 2018 was to be polite to everyone on the internet, but I repeat: you are a liar and a moron. I don't have to ”deny it all I like” when I can just provide a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
He probably needs the extra pages.
For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit?
I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
Central Asia, plus those needed for the train there.
You got the train to Central Asia and back. I'd love to know your route.
That sounds awesome! Mrs and I are tentatively looking at a trip on the Trans-Siberian next year, the route being something like London>Paris>Berlin>Warsaw>St.Petersberg>Moscow>Beijing. That last train takes a week, but you can get a first class suite that’s pretty much a half-carriage for $2k. Dollars go a long way in Russia these days.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
It's a piss poor set of choices which includes any of them.
My resolution for 2018 was to be polite to everyone on the internet, but I repeat: you are a liar and a moron. I don't have to ”deny it all I like” when I can just provide a link
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
It's a piss poor set of choices which includes any of them.
No. I think Toby Young is a good and well-qualified choice.
He's hated because he's one of the key architects behind free schools.
Cameron and Osborne would have been shouted down? Well, its a view. The positioning was, well we know the EU is terrible, but the alternative is worse. It did not prove to be optimal.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
LOL. Did you even read the posts on here when Cameron and Osborne did say something positive about the EU? Shouted down was exactly what happened on here as well as elsewhere.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
This conversation shows why a second referendum would be completely unlike the first. Leave would no longer have free rein to claim that any benefits are either unrelated to the EU or could be easily negotiated outside it. In fact it's hard to see what the Leave campaign could build a campaign around, other than a shrill rehash of Ruth Davidson's "We said Leave and we meant it."
Odd choice. Ruth Davidson was a strong remainer, one of the strongest in the Tory party.
I was referring to her GE2017 slogan:
That was the campaign that got an additional 12 Scottish Tory MPs elected in an election where they were losing seats? An odd choice indeed. There won't be a second referendum but if there were you better hope that it is not as effective as that was.
I can picture a UKIP poster now of three smug-looking has-beens Blair, Osborne and Clegg, dressed in morning suits, with the caption “Didn’t you lot get the message last time?”
Isn't Nick Clegg a Never WIll Be, rather than a Has Been?
Ex Deputy PM Nick Clegg to you.
Ex Deputy PM Sir Nick Clegg to you.
I got recently got an email from him signed Sir Nick Clegg.
My resolution for 2018 was to be polite to everyone on the internet, but I repeat: you are a liar and a moron. I don't have to ”deny it all I like” when I can just provide a link
A link to him saying "had enough of experts"
Yeah, you're a genius...
But, rather importantly, "experts" is not the last word in the sentence, is it? Don't be infantile.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
SpaceX are sure as hell throwing up the new Iridium constellation quickly at the moment, although they are to LEO rather than Geostationary orbits. There’s certainly much more opportunity for something like Newton now than there’s ever been, especially if the EU play the game I’m expecting them to play of being unreasonable by an order of magnitude when it comes to the UK subscription to EU programmes we may find beneficial.
Musk has completely revolutionised space, it’s an astonishing achievement.
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
What are his views on poor people's breasts? I think the nation deserves to know.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Yep, indeed. It's quite remarkable what SpaceX have done. It'll be better when they start passing more of the reuse costs over to the customer (apparently you don't get much of a discount for a flight-tested first stage), but they have over a billion in development costs to cover.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
He's hated because he's one of the key architects behind free schools.
More disliked because he's a self-promoting blowhard, with a tendency to say controversial stuff to raise his profile and wind people up for the sake of it. He thinks he's clever.
My resolution for 2018 was to be polite to everyone on the internet, but I repeat: you are a liar and a moron. I don't have to ”deny it all I like” when I can just provide a link
A link to him saying "had enough of experts"
Yeah, you're a genius...
Thatcher had a far stronger case regarding "there's no such thing as society" but it didn't stop the phrase being indelibly associated with her.
Gove of course also compared experts with anti-Brexit opinions to Nazi scientists who were paid to denounce Einstein...
The House of Peers surely is an anachronism in a nation which has driven the equality agenda far enough to legalise same sex marriage. We need a second chamber, I appreciate the expertise that cross bencher experts in various fields bring. But party appointees given Ermine for "services to politics"? Its not "to politics" its to "the party".
There has to be a better way of doing things. An elected second chamber proportionally elected from GE national percentages plus an appointed star chamber of experts selected by commission who serve a fixed term. Something like that. And far far fewer members. A quarter of what we have.
Aren't there more excellent cross-benchers and retired experts - some of these experts may have a party affiliation - than party hacks, dodgy donors and MPs who were kicked upstairs to vacate a seat?
There are also about 90 hereditary peers. They could be left to die off and not replaced. That would be a decent reform to follow the limited reform in the Blair years, in which some hereditaries but not all were chucked out.
I'd favour 20% elected by PR initially, rising with time as we see how it works. Plus maybe 20% indirectly elected to replace those who get there via PM patronage. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Lords acted as the official opposition when Thatcher and Blair were in power. Their majorities were too high for the official opposition to have much affect.
Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
Remainers pay most of the tax already!!
Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
Possibly not. Remainers are younger, so usually light on capital, even if on good incomes. Certainly people in work were more likely to vote Remain than those who are retired. On the other hand they often have substantial student and mortgage debt, while older people often have considerable equity in the form of real estate, and ofyen ISAs and pensions.
Controlling for age is difficult but in raw terms it is very possible that asset poor but high income voters (who have most to fear from the economic fallout of Brexit) have less wealth than low income retirees with capital assets in UK and abroad (who are insulated from the adverse effects of Brexit).
As generally in the UK we tax income and expenditure rather than wealth, it may well be that Leavers are both wealthier, and pay less tax. Indeed many would be net recipients from the Exchequer. I certainly intend to be!
Remainers are either privileged, or young and very naïve.
He's hated because he's one of the key architects behind free schools.
More disliked because he's a self-promoting blowhard, with a tendency to say controversial stuff to raise his profile and wind people up for the sake of it. He thinks he's clever.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Yep, indeed. It's quite remarkable what SpaceX have done. It'll be better when they start passing more of the reuse costs over to the customer (apparently you don't get much of a discount for a flight-tested first stage), but they have over a billion in development costs to cover.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
More specifically, SpaceX's success makes the total cost of a satellite in space much lower. Thanks to price elasticity of demand, it means there will be much greater demand for satellites thanks to Mr Musk. And it's why successful investors are usually fixated on second order effects, because that's where the money will be made.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
We could do that, of course. The question is whether this is a sensible use of our limited resources, or whether we'd be better off doing it together with others.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
Yep, indeed. It's quite remarkable what SpaceX have done. It'll be better when they start passing more of the reuse costs over to the customer (apparently you don't get much of a discount for a flight-tested first stage), but they have over a billion in development costs to cover.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.
It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
I don't think he's arguing he's being oppressed. He's putting the case for his own appointment to defend himself against the (inevitable) political pressure that will now be placed on the powers that be to scupper it.
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
The man ogles women's breasts and boasts about it over Twitter.
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
His last remark follows the precedent set by Sir Keith Joseph, aka the Mad Monk or Maggie's Mentor. He made a speech on similar lines.
- A 20 year term for members - Separate elections aligned with the GE cycle - Voters will be asked to choose which nominating committee(s) should appoint individual Lords. - Each voter gets 3 choices which can go to one or more nominating committees - Nominating committees will qualify to be on the ballot for each region by threshold performance in previous GEs and local elections. - The exception will be a cross bench committee qualified to be on the ballot in all regions. - 15 positions will be filled annually using an AV mechanism, firstly to decide next region will appoint, then within that region, which committee, based on the last election results and positions already filled based on those results. - In transition, 5% of longest serving Lords to be retired each year, and appointments done by AV to even up current discrepancies based on 1999-2018 GE results and 25% cross bench. - Deaths will be replaced in the same manner.
- A 20 year term for members - Separate elections aligned with the GE cycle - Voters will be asked to choose which nominating committee(s) should appoint individual Lords. - Each voter gets 3 choices which can go to one or more nominating committees - Nominating committees will qualify to be on the ballot for each region by threshold performance in previous GEs and local elections. - The exception will be a cross bench committee qualified to be on the ballot in all regions. - 15 positions will be filled annually using an AV mechanism, firstly to decide next region will appoint, then within that region, which committee, based on the last election results and positions already filled based on those results. - In transition, 5% of longest serving Lords to be retired each year, and appointments done by AV to even up current discrepancies based on 1999-2018 GE results and 25% cross bench. - Deaths will be replaced in the same manner.
Don't align it with GEs. We want to get proper betting opportunities. If they're on the same day, we'd see no volume on HoL elections.
It was not, that was a misrepresentation by Faisal Islam.
You can try and deny it all you like, but it will be Gove's political epitaph
You know it. I know it. He knows it.
It may well be his epitaph, because post-truthers like you repeat it out of context over and over. That doesn't make it an accurate reflection of what he meant.
All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
What about a brand new British "Newton" satellite system?
Bad choice of name, because GPS wouldn't work if you designed it with proper British physics. Account must be taken of the theories of the rootless cosmopolitan expert Einstein (both special and general).
To be fair, the Gauss-Newton method is utilised as part of GPS positional calculations, so Newton would not be entirely inappropriate.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism
I have no problem with a nationalised British company also bidding. But it has to be able to do so cheaper than a private company, or indeed, one owned by Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. If the German or French taxpayer wishes to subsidise our railways, we should be enormously grateful, not grouse about it.
Procurement should be on the basis of cost and service, not on the basis of ownership.
Exactly what powers the HoL should have relative to the HoC is a more vexed question.
http://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-women-gay-people-sexism-bumboys-totty-toby-young-2018-1
There are alternatives to Gallileo as a second source, such as the Russian Glonass or the Chinese BeiDou systems, however our equipment is not set up to use them, and they are controlled by entities that might not always be friendly to us.
Remaining a member of Gallileo would likely cost us in the high tens of millions of Euros per year. Given the cost of refitting our kit, and the lack of viable alternatives, this seems a sensible investment.
The railways in this country are generally doing well: just look at the heavy rail safety record and the unprecedented increase in passengers over the last few years. yes, there are problems - notably with the nationalised Network Rail - but the system, although messy, generally works for passengers, public and the state.
As for East Coast, you may want to look a little deeper into that and the reasons that it's happened. It's not as simple as DOR=good, privatised=bad. For one thing, the nationalised Network Rail hasn't delivered its side of the bargain, meaning that the aggressive (too much so IMO) private bid had no chance of meeting the increase in passengers. IEP will only make matters worse.
We can have nationalised railway systems in the UK. We can have private ones. There are arguments to be had over the 'ownership structure' of the railways, but it's interesting that you did not mention passengers, freight or safety once in your post. It;s almost as if the ideology matters more ...
BTW, anyone wanting to know in detail about Labour's plans for the railways should read the latest edition of Rail magazine, which has an interesting several-page dissection of them.
It's a couple of days costs.
The problem was Remain was run by Tories who saw too many problems inside their party if they made a positive case. It was like the Indyref up here. Labour were very reluctant to make a positive case for the UK when it had a Tory led government.
There is no crime (a hyperbolic attempt to delegitimise criticism) - but being a bumptious pillock with a tendency to make sexist comments means he will likely be a continuing source of negative publicity.
I have always said that there were EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into. I have no problem at all with us paying to do so. Whether the EU will have problems with it remains to be seen.
People are very likely to feel cheated, and will cast around for blame. Personally I expect Brexot just to be a bit crap, not a total disaster, but I am not in a trading industry, and stopping foreign workers may well improve my finances.
If there are EU programs and policies that we would want to buy into, that's fair enough. The EU doesn't have to let us, and if they don't, it's not their fault: it's ours. Hopefully with most (all?) of these things it will be in both our interests to be members - at a cost. But we're the ones leaving.
Made not a jot of difference.
"We have had enough of experts" was the rallying cry, and no amount of truth or logic could defeat the bullshit
I (possibly naively) also assume that Mr Young will be told to clear any public statements with the minister in advance, lest he open his mouth to insert his foot.
a second referendum would be completely unlike the first
Indeed. For starters, the first referendum existed.
This gives them one.
One can only hope the Conservatives stick together and there are enough sensible crossbenchers to allow the bill to pass.
I imagine the Lords won't obstruct and reject the whole bill (that would be a death sentence for them) but they will fire back several amendments to the Commons.
The obvious ones are beefing up a parliamentary vote on the deal, and further restrictions of the Executive's powers to act under it, with perhaps some extra rights/guarantees thrown in.
You'd be gambling, at best, on differential turnout.
You know it. I know it. He knows it.
It is a public duty to use historic articles and statements from those on the Right to expose them for who they truly are.
There has to be a better way of doing things. An elected second chamber proportionally elected from GE national percentages plus an appointed star chamber of experts selected by commission who serve a fixed term. Something like that. And far far fewer members. A quarter of what we have.
The dramatic declines in the cost of LEO launches*, thanks to SpaceX in particular, do make creation of Newton a more realistic propostion than historically. Albeit it would likely be seven to eight years before we could get it up and running given how many launches you'd need, and the lead times.
* Attn Mr Jessop, this is an area where scepticism of Elon Musk has been entirely unwarranted
I ignore the abuse: so far today I've seen tw*t, c*ck, pr*ck, and c*nt thrown around by the Left on both here and Twitter, which I think shows the paucity of their arguments more than anything else.
And, no, I'm not saying James Delingpole or Toby Young are perfect. But I still think both are far nicer people than the likes of Alastair Campbell or John McDonnell.
My resolution for 2018 was to be polite to everyone on the internet, but I repeat: you are a liar and a moron. I don't have to ”deny it all I like” when I can just provide a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
That last train takes a week, but you can get a first class suite that’s pretty much a half-carriage for $2k. Dollars go a long way in Russia these days.
Yeah, you're a genius...
And he thinks poor people are poor because they haven't been genetically screened out yet.
He's hated because he's one of the key architects behind free schools.
I got recently got an email from him signed Sir Nick Clegg.
Musk has completely revolutionised space, it’s an astonishing achievement.
(As an aside, allegedly perfecting reuse cost them many times more than just developing the rocket itself, including second stage).
Also note that the Gallileo system's first test satellite was made here in the UK by the brilliant Surrey Satellite Technology, and I think they're building the navigation parts of all the satellites (might be wrong on that, though). People forget quite how big Britain's space industry is: around £14 billion a year. Satellites is the place to be, not rockets ...
Gove of course also compared experts with anti-Brexit opinions to Nazi scientists who were paid to denounce Einstein...
There are also about 90 hereditary peers. They could be left to die off and not replaced. That would be a decent reform to follow the limited reform in the Blair years, in which some hereditaries but not all were chucked out.
I'd favour 20% elected by PR initially, rising with time as we see how it works. Plus maybe 20% indirectly elected to replace those who get there via PM patronage. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Lords acted as the official opposition when Thatcher and Blair were in power. Their majorities were too high for the official opposition to have much affect.
- A 20 year term for members
- Separate elections aligned with the GE cycle
- Voters will be asked to choose which nominating committee(s) should appoint individual Lords.
- Each voter gets 3 choices which can go to one or more nominating committees
- Nominating committees will qualify to be on the ballot for each region by threshold performance in previous GEs and local elections.
- The exception will be a cross bench committee qualified to be on the ballot in all regions.
- 15 positions will be filled annually using an AV mechanism, firstly to decide next region will appoint, then within that region, which committee, based on the last election results and positions already filled based on those results.
- In transition, 5% of longest serving Lords to be retired each year, and appointments done by AV to even up current discrepancies based on 1999-2018 GE results and 25% cross bench.
- Deaths will be replaced in the same manner.
https://order-order.com/2018/01/05/parole-board-chair-summoned-justice-committee-bob-neil-slams-ridiculous-lack-transparency/
Glad to see this one isn’t going away.