Interesting. At the same time, states need to consider how the distribution of gains affects the balance of power, and should sometimes reject positive-sum outcomes on that basis.
I think the wholesale transfer of Western technology to China via forced joint ventures and the toleration of outright theft may be seen in that light by future historians.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
A rainbow, eh? And all those pots of gold at the end of it that Corbyn was offering. They were genuine and moving too, I'll bet.
It better be genuine. McDonnell has already spent it.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
People regularly drive lorries full of people into Britain, so smuggling a tiny amount of liquid in is likely a trivial matter*. And it's not as though any regular inspection would even examine the actual contents of a small bottle.
* People apparently get fentanyl in the post from China, God knows what else comes in that way.
I'm multilingual, I'm the king of subtlety and nuance, great on my feet.
I wouldn't fall for honey traps either.
And given you infamous dress sense, particularly the shoes, nobody would ever remember you coming or going...
I'm consistently the best dressed man at work.
When I chillax is when I dress down.
I have this vision of you carrying out a poisoned umbrellla style hit and the #1 recollection those in the vicinity can remember is the muffled sound of tradegy by steps coming from some headphones...
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
I would have thought that you could put a gram or two of polonium inside a small airtight shielded container, maybe the size of a few ten pence pieces on top of each other. And then you could FedEx it.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
A rainbow, eh? And all those pots of gold at the end of it that Corbyn was offering. They were genuine and moving too, I'll bet.
It better be genuine. McDonnell has already spent it.
If you miss out on the story you aren't really understanding what politics is all about. Bitter partisan sniping just turns people off.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
Perhaps because services account for over 40% of our exports by value ?
The EU does not charge tariffs on any import of services, so this is entirely about regulation and access.
Is that does not and never will or does not currently?
I would be staggered if they introduced them, to be honest. There's no way it would get anywhere near the required unanimity given that Estonia (for example) is a utterly service dominated economy.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
Melt = Someone really thick and or someone who needs to sack up and grow a pair.
That's a definition (and I'm not convinced it's the right one), not the etymology.
The latter definition was certainly used 30 years ago in South Lancashire (you soft melt).
Melt = the ultimate destiny of the snowflake.
Not necessarily - the snowflake will melt, but that water may well end up in the water table, which may reach the surface at springs, which then enter streams, then rivers, then finally the sea! And then evaporation causes the water to turn into clouds, which may well end up making more snowflakes, depending on prevailing temperatures!
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
I would have thought that you could put a gram or two of polonium inside a small airtight shielded container, maybe the size of a few ten pence pieces on top of each other. And then you could FedEx it.
Having heard the way people smuggle drugs into prisons I think delivering it via a drone off a boat of the coast of the UK is possible.
PS - I recently read a report that said 'kids' pictures sent to prisoners have been found to have psychoactive substances mixed into the paint.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
The turnout in many Conservative seats was slightly disappointing, which suggests they didn't max out their popular vote, although if true it obviously wouldn't help them so much in marginal seats. For instance 2017 was the first time turnout was lower in Southend West than Hackney North. There are other examples.
That assumes those in safe Conservative seats who didn't vote were Conservatives. That does not necessarily follow.
All the Tory activists had taken their GOTV operation away into seats that turned out to be entirely safe for Labour.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
No, VX or Sarin would be chemical. The amounts needed for an individual attack, particularly for VX, would be miniscule, and much of the attention would be on delivery mechanism. I seriously doubt any intention of a wider attack here, as any loss of containment would quite likely expose the attacker, not just to the agent, but to being caught.
EDIT: not bring food, as autocorrect would have it!
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
And what will we do about it? Sweet FA
Perhaps the best way of getting back at Putin is to nullify the referendum.
I think that's a hopelessly optimistic outlook, trade becomes a zero sum game when a few major players treat it as such. In an abstract the theory that trade is a positive for everyone is true, in the real world that isn't the case. When you have China subsidising their industries, stealing IP and manipulating their currency in order to gain over and above what their "true" value is I think the other players are entitled to fight back.
In the same sense that Germany plays by a beggar thy neighbour rule within the Eurozone, China does within the world system.
As I said before, it will be interesting to see whether the US will make any difference.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
And what will we do about it? Sweet FA
Now is the time to use those Unexplained Wealth Orders.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
And what will we do about it? Sweet FA
Perhaps the best way of getting back at Putin is to nullify the referendum.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
A rainbow, eh? And all those pots of gold at the end of it that Corbyn was offering. They were genuine and moving too, I'll bet.
It better be genuine. McDonnell has already spent it.
If you miss out on the story you aren't really understanding what politics is all about. Bitter partisan sniping just turns people off.
If partisan sniping is ruled out on pb.com, we'd reduce the number of posts by about 90%.........
Well, if you are going to get whacked with a nerve agent, then just a stone's throw from Porton Down is probably as lucky a break as you could get.....
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
The turnout in many Conservative seats was slightly disappointing, which suggests they didn't max out their popular vote, although if true it obviously wouldn't help them so much in marginal seats. For instance 2017 was the first time turnout was lower in Southend West than Hackney North. There are other examples.
That assumes those in safe Conservative seats who didn't vote were Conservatives. That does not necessarily follow.
I'm not saying the Tories would have got a higher share of the vote in seats like Southend West if the turnout had been higher, but they probably would have got more votes overall in line with their share in that constituency if it had been higher, adding to their overall popular vote total. In other words if the turnout had been higher it's unlikely the Tory share would have been much different to what it in those seats.
Massively off-topic but please bear with me - I'd be interested in other people's experiences and thoughts.
My father will be 90 in May but moved into a residential care home last November - this isn't about the care home which does a wonderful job. His physical (not mental) deterioration has left him wheelchair bound and in constant need of care.
Some years ago, after my mother's death, we drew up a Power of Attorney which we duly registered in the event of Dad becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Until last autumn, I'd never used it apart from getting it re-registered with the Office of the Public Guardian. It's one of the older PoA that controls financial, not health matters.
Since Dad went into the home I've had to notify all the agencies with whom he has a relationship that he has moved, the house will need to be sold to pay the care home fees and so on.
What annoys me is or have been the reactions of various institutions. Some have accepted it verbally - others have asked for a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney, others won't accept an electronic copy but will accept a photocopy if sent through snail mail. One has refused even that and insisted I go to a solicitor to confirm the copy before they will do anything to help me.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
That seems like a very reasonable point to me, and exactly the sort of thing government ought to be able to sort out, making life a little bit easier for a lot of people at a trying time.
It's probably worth dropping an email to your MP about it.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
It was certainly played back to me on the doorstep that she said she wouldn't call an early election. It made people more inclined to look at her faults than before. It must have been part of the reason that she took virtually none of the undecideds - who during the campaign broke massively to Labour.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
People were asked if they supported or opposed Theresa May’s decision to call an election.
Support: 55%
Oppose: 15%
Doesn't count for much if those 15% all felt less well inclined to Theresa May...... And 40% of those 55% could have been ultimate Labour voters going "Yippee - an unexpected chance to kick out the Tories!"
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Massively off-topic but please bear with me - I'd be interested in other people's experiences and thoughts.
My father will be 90 in May but moved into a residential care home last November - this isn't about the care home which does a wonderful job. His physical (not mental) deterioration has left him wheelchair bound and in constant need of care.
Some years ago, after my mother's death, we drew up a Power of Attorney which we duly registered in the event of Dad becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Until last autumn, I'd never used it apart from getting it re-registered with the Office of the Public Guardian. It's one of the older PoA that controls financial, not health matters.
Since Dad went into the home I've had to notify all the agencies with whom he has a relationship that he has moved, the house will need to be sold to pay the care home fees and so on.
What annoys me is or have been the reactions of various institutions. Some have accepted it verbally - others have asked for a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney, others won't accept an electronic copy but will accept a photocopy if sent through snail mail. One has refused even that and insisted I go to a solicitor to confirm the copy before they will do anything to help me.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
Sorry to hear about your father's difficulties Mr Stodge, and the banalities of bureaucracy.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Indeed. Compounded by the fact that most people don't give politics much thought day-to-day (strange, but true). No election was remotely on the horizon...so no need to think too hard about it.
Sorry to hear about your father's difficulties Mr Stodge, and the banalities of bureaucracy.
Thanks for the kind word, my friend.
I'm annoyed because it's primarily the private sector that is causing me problems with each organisation having rules which are not explained and are applied inconsistently.
It's not a political point really a suggestion that I think could help a lot of people.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
It is was the minimum permitted by the dreadful FTPA.
Three weeks from dissolution to election would have been perfect.
Massively off-topic but please bear with me - I'd be interested in other people's experiences and thoughts.
My father will be 90 in May but moved into a residential care home last November - this isn't about the care home which does a wonderful job. His physical (not mental) deterioration has left him wheelchair bound and in constant need of care.
Some years ago, after my mother's death, we drew up a Power of Attorney which we duly registered in the event of Dad becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Until last autumn, I'd never used it apart from getting it re-registered with the Office of the Public Guardian. It's one of the older PoA that controls financial, not health matters.
Since Dad went into the home I've had to notify all the agencies with whom he has a relationship that he has moved, the house will need to be sold to pay the care home fees and so on.
What annoys me is or have been the reactions of various institutions. Some have accepted it verbally - others have asked for a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney, others won't accept an electronic copy but will accept a photocopy if sent through snail mail. One has refused even that and insisted I go to a solicitor to confirm the copy before they will do anything to help me.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
It's always been my practice to provide copies of powers of attorney to clients, with each page certified as being a true copy of the original.
Massively off-topic but please bear with me - I'd be interested in other people's experiences and thoughts.
My father will be 90 in May but moved into a residential care home last November - this isn't about the care home which does a wonderful job. His physical (not mental) deterioration has left him wheelchair bound and in constant need of care.
Some years ago, after my mother's death, we drew up a Power of Attorney which we duly registered in the event of Dad becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Until last autumn, I'd never used it apart from getting it re-registered with the Office of the Public Guardian. It's one of the older PoA that controls financial, not health matters.
Since Dad went into the home I've had to notify all the agencies with whom he has a relationship that he has moved, the house will need to be sold to pay the care home fees and so on.
What annoys me is or have been the reactions of various institutions. Some have accepted it verbally - others have asked for a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney, others won't accept an electronic copy but will accept a photocopy if sent through snail mail. One has refused even that and insisted I go to a solicitor to confirm the copy before they will do anything to help me.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
It is atrocious. We had similar issues with my mother in law when she went into a home after developing dementia.
I have to say now, be prepared for it to be even worse as and when he passes away. Some organisations - particularly public utilities and banks - really are atrocious when it comes to dealing with those recently bereaved. And that is in spite of them having specialist departments set up for such events. Indeed I found there was far more sympathy and understanding from the day to day bank staff than there was from the specialist bereavement staff.
IMO it wasn’t just th early election call, but the tories had no real retail offer...in fact they came up with the Gerard ratner of offers....and they didn’t bother to attack corbyns offers until way too late.
It beyond me why they didn’t KISS and come out with 4-5 basic core stuff that wasn't brexit like £200 million a week extra for nhs by 2022 etc
I sincerely hope our 92 year old Queen has been practicing her genuflecting. She wisely didn't allow the cameras to view her forced humiliation. Not so Theresa May. Definitely a good day for Corbyn
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
It's always been my practice to provide copies of powers of attorney to clients, with each page certified as being a true copy of the original.
Maybe I should come to you, Sean, but I doubt I could afford your wisdom.
That's basically what one financial institution has asked for and I went to a bank today and they refused to help because even though my father is an account holder, it wasn't related to the account.
IF everyone wanted copies with "wet signatures" as I believe it's termed, that's fine but no one told me in advance so I simply have the original which apparently I could post to them (not kidding).
It's the lack of uniformity and clarity that annoys me.
IMO it wasn’t just th early election call, but the tories had no real retail offer...in fact they came up with the Gerard ratner of offers....and they didn’t bother to attack corbyns offers until way too late.
It beyond me why they didn’t KISS and come out with 4-5 basic core stuff that wasn't brexit like £200 million a week extra for nhs by 2022 etc
To be fair it does help if the PM doesn't spring an election upon you for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Sorry to hear about your father's difficulties Mr Stodge, and the banalities of bureaucracy.
Thanks for the kind word, my friend.
I'm annoyed because it's primarily the private sector that is causing me problems with each organisation having rules which are not explained and are applied inconsistently.
It's not a political point really a suggestion that I think could help a lot of people.
I do wonder if the private sector practices are underpinned by the interpretation of government regulation (e.g. relating to data protection, privacy and money laundering - though probably not the latter in this case) - but I'm lucky to work in an industry without too much regulation, so might be barking up the wrong tree here.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
It is was the minimum permitted by the dreadful FTPA.
Three weeks from dissolution to election would have been perfect.
Is there anything to stop the FTPA being repealed?
I sincerely hope our 92 year old Queen has been practicing her genuflecting. She wisely didn't allow the cameras to view her forced humiliation. Not so Theresa May. Definitely a good day for Corbyn
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
It is was the minimum permitted by the dreadful FTPA.
Three weeks from dissolution to election would have been perfect.
Is there anything to stop the FTPA being repealed?
Not as far as I know - although repealing it doesn't reinstate the royal prerogative.
Another mess the posh boys left for the rest of us to work out.....
It's always been my practice to provide copies of powers of attorney to clients, with each page certified as being a true copy of the original.
Maybe I should come to you, Sean, but I doubt I could afford your wisdom.
That's basically what one financial institution has asked for and I went to a bank today and they refused to help because even though my father is an account holder, it wasn't related to the account.
IF everyone wanted copies with "wet signatures" as I believe it's termed, that's fine but no one told me in advance so I simply have the original which apparently I could post to them (not kidding).
It's the lack of uniformity and clarity that annoys me.
I would expect any institution which you draw money out of to require a solicitor-certified copy of the power. In fairness to the institutions, the degree of fraudulent misuse of powers of attorney is immense, to the extent that one judge in the Court of Protection said he'd advise people against making them.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
There were problems with the product, not just the packaging.
May was right to call an election. Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.
Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.
The problem was not the election. The problem was her bullshit campaign.
Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.
Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.
Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.
That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.
I would expect any institution which you draw money out of to require a solicitor-certified copy of the power.
To clarify, the original has that as well as the stamp of the Office of Public Guardian on each page. Every organisation (bar one) has asked for the Power of Attorney. Some have accepted a scanned copy sent electronically, others have been happy to accept a photocopy sent by snail mail and now one has refused even that saying I either have to send the original or get a copy re-notarised by one of a number of professionals all of whom will want a fortune for their time.
I won't send the original because I can't afford to lose it - why a stamped photocopy is unacceptable baffles me.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
Bloody hell, that's a worrying piece of info!
Just be sure to use a different pestle and mortar for food prep
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
I know it's an article of faith amongst PB tories that Corbyn is toxic and he cannot have attracted any votes but you continue to believe that at your peril.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
Bloody hell, that's a worrying piece of info!
Just be sure to use a different pestle and mortar for food prep
It is atrocious. We had similar issues with my mother in law when she went into a home after developing dementia.
I have to say now, be prepared for it to be even worse as and when he passes away. Some organisations - particularly public utilities and banks - really are atrocious when it comes to dealing with those recently bereaved. And that is in spite of them having specialist departments set up for such events. Indeed I found there was far more sympathy and understanding from the day to day bank staff than there was from the specialist bereavement staff.
OTOH when my father passed away two years ago, I found settling his affairs to be pretty straightforward. If anything, I'd say some institutions were a little too co-operative, such as BT who were quite happy to cancel his landline with just a call (on it) from me: didn't ask for any corroboration at all.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
I know it's an article of faith amongst PB tories that Corbyn is toxic and he cannot have attracted any votes but you continue to believe that at your peril.
Yes, complacency abounds. People like the hope'n'change rhetoric, as opposed to May's dreary technocratic tinkering.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Agree.
Look at the local mayoral elections around a month before - good results for the Conservatives, indicating that the wheels only came off afterwards.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
4 weeks into the campaign she was still registering 20% leads with more than one polling company. The election could have been held at that point if she hadn't decided to have a 6 week campaign.
Just seen the "mansplaining" clip from PMQs. As much as I detest such phrases, I think Corbyn deserved it. His mistake was not to follow up his reference to International Women's Day with a serious question relevant to that topic. Instead, he went off on something about the Saudis (which ironically have become more liberal in terms of women's rights).
Corbyn wasn't guilty of mansplaining. He was guilty of virtue signalling.
May was right to call an election. Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.
Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.
The problem was not the election. The problem was her bullshit campaign.
Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.
Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.
Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.
That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.
Yes, I can't believe that anyone can claim polling was flat. It rose and rose and then collapsed post manifesto launch.
I charted it at the time.
Interesting that the last 15 opinion polls — the ones conducted wholly in June — gave the Tories an average of 42.8% in Britain, and they polled 43.43% in Britain. They did better than the polls were forecasting although only slightly. The polling problems were almost entirely to do with the Labour performance being underestimated.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
4 weeks into the campaign she was still registering 20% leads with more than one polling company. The election could have been held at that point if she hadn't decided to have a 6 week campaign.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Nah - in the week after the election was called the only movement was an increase in Tory support. It was only once the campaign was well underway that Labour started gaining ground. In fact, Tory support didn't really fall much through the campaign (45% at the outset, 43.5% actual result); it was Labour's gain in support which lost TMay her majority.
That's precisely why TM should have gone for the shortest possible campaign. It was in the last couple of weeks when things really starting going wrong for her.
Where the Tory campaign went wrong for the Tories was in focusing on Mrs May rather than a team of competent Conservatives (no comments needed...), so that the whole campaign ended up centred on setting up the poor woman effectively as a supreme dictator in waiting.
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
4 weeks into the campaign she was still registering 20% leads with more than one polling company. The election could have been held at that point if she hadn't decided to have a 6 week campaign.
Around 50,000 voters are eligible to take part in tomorrow's eight local government by-elections. The parliamentary electorate is usually slightly lower than the local election electorate.
2017 parliamentary electorate for 8th March 2018 local by-elections:
Bolton, Farnworth: 10,514 Dacorum, Northchurch: 2,134 East Hampshire, Petersfield Bell Hill: 1,924 Harlow: Little Parndon & Hare Street: 5,845 Medway, Rochester West: 8,524 Nottingham, Wollaton West: 9,619 Rutland, Oakham South East: 1,989 Tameside, Droylsden East: 8,607
It is atrocious. We had similar issues with my mother in law when she went into a home after developing dementia.
I have to say now, be prepared for it to be even worse as and when he passes away. Some organisations - particularly public utilities and banks - really are atrocious when it comes to dealing with those recently bereaved. And that is in spite of them having specialist departments set up for such events. Indeed I found there was far more sympathy and understanding from the day to day bank staff than there was from the specialist bereavement staff.
OTOH when my father passed away two years ago, I found settling his affairs to be pretty straightforward. If anything, I'd say some institutions were a little too co-operative, such as BT who were quite happy to cancel his landline with just a call (on it) from me: didn't ask for any corroboration at all.
I regularly cancel peoples' utilities, just for fun. There's hardly any checking. Just call, and say you're moving.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
Killing people is easy. Fortunately, most people aren't murderers.
I would expect any institution which you draw money out of to require a solicitor-certified copy of the power.
To clarify, the original has that as well as the stamp of the Office of Public Guardian on each page. Every organisation (bar one) has asked for the Power of Attorney. Some have accepted a scanned copy sent electronically, others have been happy to accept a photocopy sent by snail mail and now one has refused even that saying I either have to send the original or get a copy re-notarised by one of a number of professionals all of whom will want a fortune for their time.
I won't send the original because I can't afford to lose it - why a stamped photocopy is unacceptable baffles me.
I'd charge £10 for each copy that I certified. I don't think you'd find it too expensive.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
Bloody hell, that's a worrying piece of info!
It's the castor oil plant. Widely available. Evergreen. Grows in shade. Has rather lovely flowers in winter. I have one in my garden.
It can be a bit of a thug so does need pruning every so often.
Around 50,000 voters are eligible to take part in tomorrow's eight local government by-elections. The parliamentary electorate is usually slightly lower than the local election electorate.
2017 parliamentary electorate for 8th March 2018 local by-elections:
Bolton, Farnworth: 10,514 Dacorum, Northchurch: 2,134 East Hampshire, Petersfield Bell Hill: 1,924 Harlow: Little Parndon & Hare Street: 5,845 Medway, Rochester West: 8,524 Nottingham, Wollaton West: 9,619 Rutland, Oakham South East: 1,989 Tameside, Droylsden East: 8,607
Total: 49,156
'Bus-Pass Elvis Party' are standing in Wollaton West.
May was right to call an election. Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.
Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.
The problem was not the election. The problem was her bullshit campaign.
Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.
Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.
Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.
That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.
Yes, I can't believe that anyone can claim polling was flat. It rose and rose and then collapsed post manifesto launch.
I charted it at the time.
Interesting that the last 15 opinion polls — the ones conducted wholly in June — gave the Tories an average of 42.8% in Britain, and they polled 43.43% in Britain. They did better than the polls were forecasting although only slightly. The polling problems were almost entirely to do with the Labour performance being underestimated.
3 weeks to go, and Labour starting bounding forward. One week to go, their support had plateaued at about 36%, according to the polls. But, in reality, they were still advancing, to 41%.
What a waste of time those numpties behind the goal are.
There may have been an incident, somewhere, sometime, where they did something, but I have watched dozens of matches and even when they really are perfectly placed to weigh in on an incident they never seem to do it.
We're back on the 'x is scared of y' nonsense stuff are we? Partisan press don't like people on the other side, it doesn't automatically mean when they report on something that person did it is because they are scared.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Ricin can easily be made from ricinis communis, which is grown widely in this country.
Bloody hell, that's a worrying piece of info!
It's the castor oil plant. Widely available. Evergreen. Grows in shade. Has rather lovely flowers in winter. I have one in my garden.
It can be a bit of a thug so does need pruning every so often.
Ah right. Mrs P is the gardener in our household. Thuggish plants a seldom tolerated.
Comments
I think the wholesale transfer of Western technology to China via forced joint ventures and the toleration of outright theft may be seen in that light by future historians.
When I chillax is when I dress down.
* People apparently get fentanyl in the post from China, God knows what else comes in that way.
A thorough rummage through the PB archives is in order ....
(I'll get me coat..)
PS - I recently read a report that said 'kids' pictures sent to prisoners have been found to have psychoactive substances mixed into the paint.
https://twitter.com/moylato/status/970996163276169216
Edit - Hold up, the Bulgarians do a degree in firefighting?
A policeman is also fighting for his life, according to the papers. God knows who else was put at risk. Not just the NHS staff but those in the restaurant, people walking roundabout, children etc. An assassination attempt which puts ordinary members of the public at risk is pretty bloody close to a terrorist attack, frankly.
EDIT: not bring food, as autocorrect would have it!
In the same sense that Germany plays by a beggar thy neighbour rule within the Eurozone, China does within the world system.
As I said before, it will be interesting to see whether the US will make any difference.
https://twitter.com/theWPTformula/status/971424636360683520
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely.
The ultimate failure with the polling was the underlying question "IF there was a general election today...." To get to that VERY BIG IF, you had to climb over the hurdle that Theresa May had said there would be no early General Election. So it was an entirely theoretical situation.
Problem came when Theresa May called an election - she broke her word. That put a huge negative into the mix that was not there in the pre-election polling numbers. So by the very act of calling an election, she dismantled the underlying basis for her good numbers - that people had believed her, but then no longer did.
You would have thought some clever folks at the heart of Government might have spotted that.....
Massively off-topic but please bear with me - I'd be interested in other people's experiences and thoughts.
My father will be 90 in May but moved into a residential care home last November - this isn't about the care home which does a wonderful job. His physical (not mental) deterioration has left him wheelchair bound and in constant need of care.
Some years ago, after my mother's death, we drew up a Power of Attorney which we duly registered in the event of Dad becoming mentally or physically incapacitated. Until last autumn, I'd never used it apart from getting it re-registered with the Office of the Public Guardian. It's one of the older PoA that controls financial, not health matters.
Since Dad went into the home I've had to notify all the agencies with whom he has a relationship that he has moved, the house will need to be sold to pay the care home fees and so on.
What annoys me is or have been the reactions of various institutions. Some have accepted it verbally - others have asked for a scanned copy of the Power of Attorney, others won't accept an electronic copy but will accept a photocopy if sent through snail mail. One has refused even that and insisted I go to a solicitor to confirm the copy before they will do anything to help me.
I find it absurd there is no consistent standard across financial, utility and other institutions when dealing with Powers of Attorney. It has wasted my time and cost me money especially when dealing with organisations where the response has been inconsistent.
In an ageing society, more and more people will be taking on this financial responsibility and control for elderly relatives - why can't all these groups agree a single protocol whatever that may be so we all know where we stand as regards dealing with all these organisations when a Power of Attorney needs to be activated and used ?
Rant over - you can all go back to arguing about Brexit, slagging off foreigners and talking about Formula 1.
It's probably worth dropping an email to your MP about it.
Guardian poll
People were asked if they supported or opposed Theresa May’s decision to call an election.
Support: 55%
Oppose: 15%
No election was remotely on the horizon...so no need to think too hard about it.
I'm annoyed because it's primarily the private sector that is causing me problems with each organisation having rules which are not explained and are applied inconsistently.
It's not a political point really a suggestion that I think could help a lot of people.
Three weeks from dissolution to election would have been perfect.
I have to say now, be prepared for it to be even worse as and when he passes away. Some organisations - particularly public utilities and banks - really are atrocious when it comes to dealing with those recently bereaved. And that is in spite of them having specialist departments set up for such events. Indeed I found there was far more sympathy and understanding from the day to day bank staff than there was from the specialist bereavement staff.
It beyond me why they didn’t KISS and come out with 4-5 basic core stuff that wasn't brexit like £200 million a week extra for nhs by 2022 etc
That's basically what one financial institution has asked for and I went to a bank today and they refused to help because even though my father is an account holder, it wasn't related to the account.
IF everyone wanted copies with "wet signatures" as I believe it's termed, that's fine but no one told me in advance so I simply have the original which apparently I could post to them (not kidding).
It's the lack of uniformity and clarity that annoys me.
Another mess the posh boys left for the rest of us to work out.....
I know that her behaviour before the election gave every support to this impression; and her behaviour afterwards has just given the impression that she thinks she does indeed have dictatorial powers, both here in the UK and in the EU - if not the entire world. So naturally enough, people voted against her. Nothing to do with Corbyn - he was just the instrument that came most readily to hand last time round.
I charted it at the time.
I won't send the original because I can't afford to lose it - why a stamped photocopy is unacceptable baffles me.
The referee, assistant referee, and the extra official all had clear views of that penalty.
Look at the local mayoral elections around a month before - good results for the Conservatives, indicating that the wheels only came off afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#2017
Corbyn wasn't guilty of mansplaining. He was guilty of virtue signalling.
Around 50,000 voters are eligible to take part in tomorrow's eight local government by-elections. The parliamentary electorate is usually slightly lower than the local election electorate.
2017 parliamentary electorate for 8th March 2018 local by-elections:
Bolton, Farnworth: 10,514
Dacorum, Northchurch: 2,134
East Hampshire, Petersfield Bell Hill: 1,924
Harlow: Little Parndon & Hare Street: 5,845
Medway, Rochester West: 8,524
Nottingham, Wollaton West: 9,619
Rutland, Oakham South East: 1,989
Tameside, Droylsden East: 8,607
Total: 49,156
https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/971430988147494913
It can be a bit of a thug so does need pruning every so often.
Upset alert?
No
I mean seriously.