The left hunting Amber Rudd is not surprising but they seem to be confusing the dreadful treatment of the Windrush children, comprehensively condemned across the political spectrum, with an attempt to widen it to immigration in general.
This is a mistake as immigration is still a very important subject and illegal immigration even more so. I very much doubt the public disagrees with the policy of hostility to illegal immigration first coined by Alan Johnson and endorsed by labour including Yvette Cooper and carried on by TM and now Amber Rudd.
Labour accusation of institutional racism from various spokespeople this morning, including Corbyn, just enforces the publics view that labour have no intention of taking a hard line on this subject and that will not help them with the working class which they need to be in with any chance of office
Labour is reminding middle class BAME voters about the underlying realities of the Conservative Party.
Labour are reminding the working class that this labour party are softening us up so if they get into power of no slowing down of the immigration numbers.
Just watch the asylum numbers go through the roof with Jeremy and mates.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
The left hunting Amber Rudd is not surprising but they seem to be confusing the dreadful treatment of the Windrush children, comprehensively condemned across the political spectrum, with an attempt to widen it to immigration in general.
This is a mistake as immigration is still a very important subject and illegal immigration even more so. I very much doubt the public disagrees with the policy of hostility to illegal immigration first coined by Alan Johnson and endorsed by labour including Yvette Cooper and carried on by TM and now Amber Rudd.
Labour accusation of institutional racism from various spokespeople this morning, including Corbyn, just enforces the publics view that labour have no intention of taking a hard line on this subject and that will not help them with the working class which they need to be in with any chance of office
Even if it is a joke to think it is as much a bastion as some think, I fail to see why that means we must make it worse with mandatory ID cards. Even if it is only a small thing, well better a small thing than nothing.
Personally I don't think it would be a worse thing to have a good and robust national ID card, rather than use a hodge-podge of driving licenses, national insurance numbers, passports, birth certificates, gas bills and so on to prove identity.
I don't think it should be mandatory to carry an ID card at all times, but when we do need ID it would be nice to have a uniform system that can be used for all occasions.
You can bet that Anne Marie Walters would not have been raising this if Zac Goldsmith had been mayor. And what is Khan supposed to do anyway?
He spends all his time preening and not enough time governing. Zac was a terrible candidate, the right man won - but he’s just disappointing.
And then there’s the stabbings. There seems to be one murder a week in my neighbourhood. It’s really not clear that Zac is taking it seriously, his main instinct seems to be to avoid blame.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
Even if it is a joke to think it is as much a bastion as some think, I fail to see why that means we must make it worse with mandatory ID cards. Even if it is only a small thing, well better a small thing than nothing.
Personally I don't think it would be a worse thing to have a good and robust national ID card, rather than use a hodge-podge of driving licenses, national insurance numbers, passports, birth certificates, gas bills and so on to prove identity.
I don't think it should be mandatory to carry an ID card at all times, but when we do need ID it would be nice to have a uniform system that can be used for all occasions.
Why is uniformity a good thing?
When you buy a kettle, you expect to be able to plug it into your power sockets. Uniformity has utility.
Even if it is a joke to think it is as much a bastion as some think, I fail to see why that means we must make it worse with mandatory ID cards. Even if it is only a small thing, well better a small thing than nothing.
Personally I don't think it would be a worse thing to have a good and robust national ID card, rather than use a hodge-podge of driving licenses, national insurance numbers, passports, birth certificates, gas bills and so on to prove identity.
I don't think it should be mandatory to carry an ID card at all times, but when we do need ID it would be nice to have a uniform system that can be used for all occasions.
Why is uniformity a good thing?
Because it's the same process for everyone and easier for the poor and less informed if you have a consistent system which can be offered at concessionary rates or free to those on low incomes. Many people never go abroad so never need a passport and in London and other cities due to the availability of public transport many have no need of a car so don't have need of a licence.
Had we had some form of ID card or citizens card or public services card held by all those legally entitled to live here perhaps the Windrush cases could have been resolved more easily rather than relying on decades old records which can get mislaid or destroyed. Even Ireland has a public services ID card now - and almost all EU nations have national ID cards. Those ID cards can even be used as effective passports to travel in the EU and EEA area.
I was listening to a phone in earlier and a retired Home office civil servant came on and commented that the main reason we didn't have an ID card was because ministers didn't actually want us to find out how many people were actually living here. Far better to rely on middle class interviewers with a clipboard sampling a few people At airports to work out what our net population growth was annually excluding births and deaths than have a registration system that would tell us the real story as most European democracies have.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
The left hunting Amber Rudd is not surprising but they seem to be confusing the dreadful treatment of the Windrush children, comprehensively condemned across the political spectrum, with an attempt to widen it to immigration in general.
This is a mistake as immigration is still a very important subject and illegal immigration even more so. I very much doubt the public disagrees with the policy of hostility to illegal immigration first coined by Alan Johnson and endorsed by labour including Yvette Cooper and carried on by TM and now Amber Rudd.
Labour accusation of institutional racism from various spokespeople this morning, including Corbyn, just enforces the publics view that labour have no intention of taking a hard line on this subject and that will not help them with the working class which they need to be in with any chance of office
I don't know if I am just in a contrary mood this morning whilst I wonder what to do with my BBQ food but I see this the other way around.
The immigration policies are indeed the issue and the WIndrush children are no more than an example of the sort of problems that we have created by retrospectively imposing documentation standards on people which were not applicable at the time they came. We need some original, liberal and compassionate thinking about the consequences of what we do for those affected.
100% agree but there is a balance - going soft on illegal immigration would be very unpopular
Well, let's go back to treating it as part of the civil law with a six year time limit in England and Wales (or sometimes 12 years with some contracts which I think only lawyers understand).
The media, well R4, have now publicised the case of a 80 year old lady who went to a family funeral in 2009 and was refused readmission to the UK. How utterly disgraceful. R4 reported that pre-1960 documents may be in the national archives. So if you're over 57 you might now be alright but those in early middle age may still be denied legal residency and the govt will be waiting for this to die down so that they can get nasty again and deport first, ask questions later.
How did she leave the UK without a passport ?
She must have had a passport which was not queried when leaving but questions were asked when attempting to board a return flight.
That's actually a very 'convenient' way to deport people if a government has malign intent. Let them leave then edit their online file so that they're stopped at the airport on their return.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Now I live in Denmark I find the ‘gulkort’ we all have to be very useful. But then in Denmark you have to register with your kommune and it’s pretty hard to function as an illegal immigrant. The utility of having what is effectively an ID card in a country where I have faith in the government far outweighs my old view when I lived in the UK that my life was none of the govt’s business
Even if it is a joke to think it is as much a bastion as some think, I fail to see why that means we must make it worse with mandatory ID cards. Even if it is only a small thing, well better a small thing than nothing.
Personally I don't think it would be a worse thing to have a good and robust national ID card, rather than use a hodge-podge of driving licenses, national insurance numbers, passports, birth certificates, gas bills and so on to prove identity.
I don't think it should be mandatory to carry an ID card at all times, but when we do need ID it would be nice to have a uniform system that can be used for all occasions.
Why is uniformity a good thing?
Because it's the same process for everyone and easier for the poor and less informed if you have a consistent system which can be offered at concessionary rates or free to those on low incomes. Many people never go abroad so never need a passport and in London and other cities due to the availability of public transport many have no need of a car so don't have need of a licence.
Had we had some form of ID card or citizens card or public services card held by all those legally entitled to live here perhaps the Windrush cases could have been resolved more easily rather than relying on decades old records which can get mislaid or destroyed. Even Ireland has a public services ID card now - and almost all EU nations have national ID cards. Those ID cards can even be used as effective passports to travel in the EU and EEA area.
I was listening to a phone in earlier and a retired Home office civil servant came on and commented that the main reason we didn't have an ID card was because ministers didn't actually want us to find out how many people were living here. Far better to rely on middle class interviewers with a clipboard sampling a few people At airports to work out what our net population growth was annually excluding births and deaths.
All those things are done already. The fact that other countries in Europe have these things is no excuse for us to have them as well. And if you think that an ID card would make the Welfare system more efficient or progressive then you are very sadly mistaken.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Thanks. Currently 9.8 on BF.
I agree this is a little high given the intractability of the customs union issue.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Now I live in Denmark I find the ‘gulkort’ we all have to be very useful. But then in Denmark you have to register with your kommune and it’s pretty hard to function as an illegal immigrant. The utility of having what is effectively an ID card in a country where I have faith in the government far outweighs my old view when I lived in the UK that my life was none of the govt’s business
I am not sure I would have any long term faith in the country which invented the Janteloven.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Now I live in Denmark I find the ‘gulkort’ we all have to be very useful. But then in Denmark you have to register with your kommune and it’s pretty hard to function as an illegal immigrant. The utility of having what is effectively an ID card in a country where I have faith in the government far outweighs my old view when I lived in the UK that my life was none of the govt’s business
Interesting how one's perspective can change. If the utility angle were pushed, and believed, I imagine once implemented many in the UK would get over their concerns. But I remain heavily skeptical.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
The basic US system of government is still admiral. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
Ain't that the truth. I am no american constitutional scholar, of course, but in all honesty the system that was set up seems to have been admirably robust and effective for a very long period, even if deep flaws run through it.
The basic US system of government is still admiral. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
Ain't that the truth. I am no american constitutional scholar, of course, but in all honesty the system that was set up seems to have been admirably robust and effective for a very long period, even if deep flaws run through it.
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Now I live in Denmark I find the ‘gulkort’ we all have to be very useful. But then in Denmark you have to register with your kommune and it’s pretty hard to function as an illegal immigrant. The utility of having what is effectively an ID card in a country where I have faith in the government far outweighs my old view when I lived in the UK that my life was none of the govt’s business
I am not sure I would have any long term faith in the country which invented the Janteloven.
You blame an entire country for the books of one man? Isn't that the kind of collectivism you decry?
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Thanks. Currently 9.8 on BF.
I agree this is a little high given the intractability of the customs union issue.
10/1 is definitely value. I reckon an October GE very likely. T May will accept the customs union in whatever name. A majority of the party brought up with idea of FTA's with all sorts of countries may not accept that. Why should other nations offer a better deal to a country of 63m than to a bloc of 450m beats me. They might offer better terms but only if they get better terms.
Would UK automatic right of entry to Indians, for example ?
The basic US system of government is still admiral. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
Ain't that the truth. I am no american constitutional scholar, of course, but in all honesty the system that was set up seems to have been admirably robust and effective for a very long period, even if deep flaws run through it.
Thanks for quoting me, typo and all
Not my fault, guvnor, once done it doesn't pick up that someone makes a correction!
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Sky news lost all balance a long time ago
Something obviously went on at Sky News. In the space of about 2 years so many of their best people left, Joey Jones, Jeff Randall, Sam Kiley, Tim Marshall...
In principle we ought to be able to do a better job of identifying people if we had a system designed for that purpose, rather than using all the various types of proxy approaches that I've listed before.
I don't want the Government to be able to do a better job of identifying people.
Now I live in Denmark I find the ‘gulkort’ we all have to be very useful. But then in Denmark you have to register with your kommune and it’s pretty hard to function as an illegal immigrant. The utility of having what is effectively an ID card in a country where I have faith in the government far outweighs my old view when I lived in the UK that my life was none of the govt’s business
I am not sure I would have any long term faith in the country which invented the Janteloven.
You blame an entire country for the books of one man? Isn't that the kind of collectivism you decry?
Nope. Having lived and worked in both Denmark and Norway I believe it is an accurate reflection of the mind set of an important section of public and governmental opinion in those those countries. What personal experience do you have of those countries before you feel fit to comment on other views of them?
Just proving again under corbyn and his mates,nothing will be done about mass immigration.
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
Apart from PR exercises and targeting low hanging fruit rather than tackling real illegals what has May actually done to control immigration - it's the highest gross and net rate in our history. If May is tackling the issue its hard to see the effect of the policies.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Thanks. Currently 9.8 on BF.
I agree this is a little high given the intractability of the customs union issue.
BF's 9.8 equates to 8.36/1 net of their 5% commission, therefore lagging Ladbrokes'/Coral's odds by 16.4%.
Just proving again under corbyn and his mates,nothing will be done about mass immigration.
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
Apart from PR exercises and targeting low hanging fruit rather than tackling real illegals what has May actually done to control immigration - it's the highest gross and net rate in our history. If May is tackling the issue its hard to see the effect of the policies.
So she is criticised from both ends for being too ruthlessly effective, and completely ineffective, at the same time? A potent combination.
Just proving again under corbyn and his mates,nothing will be done about mass immigration.
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
Apart from PR exercises and targeting low hanging fruit rather than tackling real illegals what has May actually done to control immigration - it's the highest gross and net rate in our history. If May is tackling the issue its hard to see the effect of the policies.
So she is criticised from both ends for being too ruthlessly effective, and completely ineffective, at the same time? A potent combination.
She is ruthless. No one has suggested that she is or was effective.
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
Who sells them that illusion? When I was a teenager, 13 years ago, it was pretty clear that way more people were going to university, and therefore you really needed to do something useful there to get ahead.
The First Minister of Scotland has inexplicably stated that the international tendering for auxiliary vessel contracts is a betrayal for the Clyde, despite the yards having no interest in them, having never been promised them and the fact the vessels couldn’t physically fit on the slipway.
When a friend of mine worked at BAE in Scotstoun he was tasked with carrying out the maths that showed that on launch HMS Diamond would not ram into @intuBraehead. On the day she stopped short by 6 inches. Current RFA Solid Support ships are 30m longer than Diamond. FYI.
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
Who sells them that illusion? When I was a teenager, 13 years ago, it was pretty clear that way more people were going to university, and therefore you really needed to do something useful there to get ahead.
I ignored that and studied history.
See how the unis these days market themselves. They are economical with the facts to put it mildly, employing highly quality advertising which focuses on one narrow stat they can find which appears to suggest that kids going to (insert uni ranked 100th in the country) stand a fantastic chance of getting a great career based upon 3 years of social media studies.
The left hunting Amber Rudd is not surprising but they seem to be confusing the dreadful treatment of the Windrush children, comprehensively condemned across the political spectrum, with an attempt to widen it to immigration in general.
This is a mistake as immigration is still a very important subject and illegal immigration even more so. I very much doubt the public disagrees with the policy of hostility to illegal immigration first coined by Alan Johnson and endorsed by labour including Yvette Cooper and carried on by TM and now Amber Rudd.
Labour accusation of institutional racism from various spokespeople this morning, including Corbyn, just enforces the publics view that labour have no intention of taking a hard line on this subject and that will not help them with the working class which they need to be in with any chance of office
I don't know if I am just in a contrary mood this morning whilst I wonder what to do with my BBQ food but I see this the other way around.
The immigration policies are indeed the issue and the WIndrush children are no more than an example of the sort of problems that we have created by retrospectively imposing documentation standards on people which were not applicable at the time they came. We need some original, liberal and compassionate thinking about the consequences of what we do for those affected.
100% agree but there is a balance - going soft on illegal immigration would be very unpopular
I realise you've been genuinely appalled by how the Windrushers have been treated, but I'm not sure this line you've moved to about how a hostile environment is fine as long as it only applies to illegal immigrants makes sense. The point is that we don't know who or where illegal immigrants are, so in order to make life hard for them, we put in measures which affect all immigrants (and, in fact, everyone else, if you somehow can't prove you're a citizen any more. Not sure how likely that is, but could imagine it affecting the long-term homeless).
So unless you can describe what a "hostile, but only if you're here illegally" environment looks like, we should accept there's fundamentally a trade-off here.
Just proving again under corbyn and his mates,nothing will be done about mass immigration.
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
Apart from PR exercises and targeting low hanging fruit rather than tackling real illegals what has May actually done to control immigration - it's the highest gross and net rate in our history. If May is tackling the issue its hard to see the effect of the policies.
You're probably right but just pointing out that Merkel's immigration policy will be practiced here under Corbyn.
Just look at his front bench and his supporters like mason on immigration,these people loved what Merkel did.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
Just proving again under corbyn and his mates,nothing will be done about mass immigration.
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
Apart from PR exercises and targeting low hanging fruit rather than tackling real illegals what has May actually done to control immigration - it's the highest gross and net rate in our history. If May is tackling the issue its hard to see the effect of the policies.
So she is criticised from both ends for being too ruthlessly effective, and completely ineffective, at the same time? A potent combination.
May is great at talking tough, setting red lines and appearing to tackle a problem. And then she caves in and doesn't deliver. Brexit being a prime example.
If controlling mass immigration is seeing it Increase to the highest levels ever you sort of wonder what exactly she has achieved.
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
Who sells them that illusion? When I was a teenager, 13 years ago, it was pretty clear that way more people were going to university, and therefore you really needed to do something useful there to get ahead.
I ignored that and studied history.
I don't think uni students *are* being sold a lie like that.
They see university as as a Good Thing (TM). Whether they ever pay the debt is more a question for the people who make the rules than the people who actually go.
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
They should apply for the civil service, you’re not allowed to put your university on your application.
It wouldn’t surprise me if that became mainstream, given the equality agenda in this country.
Sneaking under the wire is no good though. Graduates need to be able to deliver something, and something beyond that which you can find in non-graduates.
The selling of illusions starts early now. What actual understanding of Physics do you need for a GCSE? - probably almost none. I can tell you that the required level of understanding of statistics for an MA at one of these newer universities is almost none too.
I remember a good understanding of Fourier transforms being pretty obligatory in some fields - that's a decent hurdle. The replacement with 'tieing your own shoe-laces' seems a step back.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
The immediate concern is the Article 50 withdrawal agreement. The draft issued by the EU Commission contains a "backstop" where Northern Ireland remains in the EU customs union and takes regulatory alignment on goods and agriculture from the EU. This implies customs borders at the Irish Sea. Mrs May has said no British PM would sign up to that deal and it is in any case anathema to the DUP who are keeping her in power. Unless the EU remove that backstop (highly unlikely), Mrs May or her successor will have no choice but to agree to the EU backstop applying either to NI or the whole UK. The idea of scuppering or even delaying any and all arrangements with the EU and third countries over this is totally unrealistic.
This is just the backstop, which needs to be accepted in the next couple of months. The actual trade agreement will come after we leave next year. Mrs May could say to Leavers, this is just the backstop, we agree it so we can leave the EU. focus on the big prize and then we can get a much better deal later, blah blah...
Mrs May might agree the backstop and then resign or be pushed out. It's hard to see a general election before the Conservative leadership is sorted out. One or both will take place in the context of leadership or general elections happening during the most critical moments of the Brexit negotiations.
I don't see it happening. Maybe 10-1 is acceptable odds.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Can you prove your assertion about illegal voting?
Isn't voter fraud illegal?
Yes but it is such a tiny, almost insignificant, event that claiming it gives any advantage to any party seems rather ludicrous. And whilst I entirely agree that all illegal activities should be dealt with by the authorities, there needs to be some sense of proportion.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
I certainly agree that it is depressing that Wales is poorer now than it was when devolution began. It is difficult -- given that Wales has been continually ruled by Labour -- to absolve them of all the blame.
The Labour party doesn't have a majority in the Assembly, but rely on the sole LibDem (Kirsty Williams) and a Plaid Cymru renegade (Dafydd Ellis-Thomas) to prop them up. Carwyn was very good at tickling the egos of KW and DET. That skill will be needed by his successor.
The runners & riders are
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
However, we've just had an election for Carwyn's Deputy where the Unions voted one way, and the members another way (shades of the election of Ed Miliband).
The union's sweetheart won (Carolyn Harris).
On that basis, I'd tip Vaughan Gething. He has few enemies, there is nothing there to dislike. He is (probably) not implicated in the Carl Sergeant imbroglio, more details of which will I expect gradually emerge.
He'll probably keep the Welsh Labour ship afloat for a little longer.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Can you prove your assertion about illegal voting?
Isn't voter fraud illegal?
Yes but it is such a tiny, almost insignificant, event that claiming it gives any advantage to any party seems rather ludicrous. And whilst I entirely agree that all illegal activities should be dealt with by the authorities, there needs to be some sense of proportion.
One of the wonders of our system is that it has evolved to make mass fraud very difficult - as long as the authorities running it are trusted.
For me, this is one of the vital factors to be considered in any electoral process: it has to make mass fraud very difficult without being noticed.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Can you prove your assertion about illegal voting?
Isn't voter fraud illegal?
Yes but it is such a tiny, almost insignificant, event that claiming it gives any advantage to any party seems rather ludicrous. And whilst I entirely agree that all illegal activities should be dealt with by the authorities, there needs to be some sense of proportion.
One of the wonders of our system is that it has evolved to make mass fraud very difficult - as long as the authorities running it are trusted.
For me, this is one of the vital factors to be considered in any electoral process: it has to make mass fraud very difficult without being noticed.
The basic US system of government is still admiral. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
Ain't that the truth. I am no american constitutional scholar, of course, but in all honesty the system that was set up seems to have been admirably robust and effective for a very long period, even if deep flaws run through it.
Thanks for quoting me, typo and all
Thematically consistent, given the barnacles metaphor.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
I certainly agree that it is depressing that Wales is poorer now than it was when devolution began. It is difficult -- given that Wales has been continually ruled by Labour -- to absolve them of all the blame.
The Labour party doesn't have a majority in the Assembly, but rely on the sole LibDem (Kirsty Williams) and a Plaid Cymru renegade (Dafydd Ellis-Thomas) to prop them up. Carwyn was very good at tickling the egos of KW and DET. That skill will be needed by his successor.
The runners & riders are
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
However, we've just had an election for Carwyn's Deputy where the Unions voted one way, and the members another way (shades of the election of Ed Miliband).
The union's sweetheart won (Carolyn Harris).
On that basis, I'd tip Vaughan Gething. He has few enemies, there is nothing there to dislike. He is (probably) not implicated in the Carl Sergeant imbroglio, more details of which will I expect gradually emerge.
He'll probably keep the Welsh Labour ship afloat for a little longer.
Thank-you.
The mainstream press is ridiculously London-centric and it’s good to hear updates from other parts of the U.K.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially in the antebellum South, had their legislatures select them. There is nothing in the constitution to stop states going back to that, or even select the electors by lottery.
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Can you prove your assertion about illegal voting?
Isn't voter fraud illegal?
Yes but it is such a tiny, almost insignificant, event that claiming it gives any advantage to any party seems rather ludicrous. And whilst I entirely agree that all illegal activities should be dealt with by the authorities, there needs to be some sense of proportion.
One of the wonders of our system is that it has evolved to make mass fraud very difficult - as long as the authorities running it are trusted.
For me, this is one of the vital factors to be considered in any electoral process: it has to make mass fraud very difficult without being noticed.
Whereas electronic voting....
Is obviously awesome, with no down sides at all. After all, it is modern, and that means it must be much better than the old, antiquated pen-and-paper system ...
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially in the antebellum South, had their legislatures select them. There is nothing in the constitution to stop states going back to that, or even select the electors by lottery.
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
Another few years and Texas will likely go Democrat (with a very much outside chance of that happening this cycle). That will change a lot of calculations.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
By her actions, she has proved that she is more or less a racist like a lot of Tory leaders (Cameron was the one exception). The Tory share among ethnic minorities is derisory - a lot of the the good work done by Cameron has been undone.
Because it's the same process for everyone and easier for the poor and less informed if you have a consistent system which can be offered at concessionary rates or free to those on low incomes. Many people never go abroad so never need a passport and in London and other cities due to the availability of public transport many have no need of a car so don't have need of a licence.
Had we had some form of ID card or citizens card or public services card held by all those legally entitled to live here perhaps the Windrush cases could have been resolved more easily rather than relying on decades old records which can get mislaid or destroyed. Even Ireland has a public services ID card now - and almost all EU nations have national ID cards. Those ID cards can even be used as effective passports to travel in the EU and EEA area.
The answer to this is simple: the UK, unlike most European countries, does not have a registration culture. You don't have to register with the police when you move, you don't have to register with a GP when you move, the hotel doesn't have to report your booking to the police, you don't have to register centrally when you change your name, and so on. As a result we don't really have big centralised joined-up databases. We don't even have a 100% accurate list of houses/flats (both the PAF and Land Registry have flaws). What we have is an enormous mish-mash of a shit-ton of databases which aren't held in sync, and every time the Government tries to join them together it falls flat on its face: the Blair government and the NHS spine being the obvious example. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the Government is all-knowing, all-powerful, and it's just loony-lefty libtards that are preventing this.
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
Who sells them that illusion? When I was a teenager, 13 years ago, it was pretty clear that way more people were going to university, and therefore you really needed to do something useful there to get ahead.
I ignored that and studied history.
See how the unis these days market themselves. They are economical with the facts to put it mildly, employing highly quality advertising which focuses on one narrow stat they can find which appears to suggest that kids going to (insert uni ranked 100th in the country) stand a fantastic chance of getting a great career based upon 3 years of social media studies.
Why not? Most degrees are not vocational, at least not for most graduates. Why does it matter for a job in shelf-stacking or Downing Street whether a degree is in Geography or Physics or Media Studies? And if it is vocational, is a 2.2 in medicine from Newcastle better or worse than the same degree from Bristol? One of the things Google found when it looked at the data was that its best employees did not come from the best universities (some did, of course, but overall it did not help). British employers have their own prejudices which could also prove mistaken.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
By her actions, she has proved that she is more or less a racist like a lot of Tory leaders (Cameron was the one exception). The Tory share among ethnic minorities is derisory - a lot of the the good work done by Cameron has been undone.
I can't think of any recent Tory leader who has been a racist.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially in the antebellum South, had their legislatures select them. There is nothing in the constitution to stop states going back to that, or even select the electors by lottery.
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
Another few years and Texas will likely go Democrat (with a very much outside chance of that happening this cycle). That will change a lot of calculations.
Arizona will probably flip in 2020, Texas likely in 2024. That will be a swing of almost 72 EC votes. Even PA, FL, WI, OH, MI may not be enough for the GOP.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
Some vivid descriptions, much obliged.
'has some competencies' is a fabulous backhanded complement.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state...
That’s not exactly true (though more or less so for practical considerations). The relevant clause reads - “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate...” - so in theory, a constitutional amendment could be passed by the normal route depriving (for example) North Dakota of one of its Senators, and providing North Dakota assented, the amendment would be valid.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially in the antebellum South, had their legislatures select them. There is nothing in the constitution to stop states going back to that, or even select the electors by lottery.
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
Another few years and Texas will likely go Democrat (with a very much outside chance of that happening this cycle). That will change a lot of calculations.
Arizona will probably flip in 2020, Texas likely in 2024. That will be a swing of almost 72 EC votes. Even PA, FL, WI, OH, MI may not be enough for the GOP.
Which tends to account for the desperate paranoia which seems to have taken hold of the a Republican party.
One of the things Google found when it looked at the data was that its best employees did not come from the best universities (some did, of course, but overall it did not help). British employers have their own prejudices which could also prove mistaken.
Do you have a reference to the Google work on universities?.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
The equal representation in the Senate clause is entrenched and can't be amended or removed without the consent of every state.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
Another few years and Texas will likely go Democrat (with a very much outside chance of that happening this cycle). That will change a lot of calculations.
I think it could be some while before Texas flips, if it flips. However, the political outlook of US States can shift very rapidly.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
I certainly agree that it is depressing that Wales is poorer now than it was when devolution began. It is difficult -- given that Wales has been continually ruled by Labour -- to absolve them of all the blame.
The Labour party doesn't have a majority in the Assembly, but rely on the sole LibDem (Kirsty Williams) and a Plaid Cymru renegade (Dafydd Ellis-Thomas) to prop them up. Carwyn was very good at tickling the egos of KW and DET. That skill will be needed by his successor.
The runners & riders are
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
However, we've just had an election for Carwyn's Deputy where the Unions voted one way, and the members another way (shades of the election of Ed Miliband).
The union's sweetheart won (Carolyn Harris).
On that basis, I'd tip Vaughan Gething. He has few enemies, there is nothing there to dislike. He is (probably) not implicated in the Carl Sergeant imbroglio, more details of which will I expect gradually emerge.
He'll probably keep the Welsh Labour ship afloat for a little longer.
I knew Vaughan Gething when he was a student at Aberystwyth in 1998. Always looking for the next opportunity but a genuinely nice guy.
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
Can you prove your assertion about illegal voting?
Isn't voter fraud illegal?
Yes but it is such a tiny, almost insignificant, event that claiming it gives any advantage to any party seems rather ludicrous. And whilst I entirely agree that all illegal activities should be dealt with by the authorities, there needs to be some sense of proportion.
Works well in Northern Ireland. Current system of control doesn't pass the smell test.
And just why are Labour so concerned with a convicted election fraudster in the leaders office?
I see Labour's latest attempt to hide their anti semetic troubles is to try and call May a racist, supported by Sky News & The Guardian.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
By her actions, she has proved that she is more or less a racist like a lot of Tory leaders (Cameron was the one exception). The Tory share among ethnic minorities is derisory - a lot of the the good work done by Cameron has been undone.
Utter nonsense. Just because comrade Corbyn & his cult try to conflate the poor UK state approach to Windrush by all governments to May wanting to be tough on illegal immigration of any colour, doesn't make it true.
Every Tory attempt to make it less likely that people vote.From individual voter registration to not mentioning the deadline for registration to voter I'D checks is carefully considered for political advantage.
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
One of the things Google found when it looked at the data was that its best employees did not come from the best universities (some did, of course, but overall it did not help). British employers have their own prejudices which could also prove mistaken.
Do you have a reference to the Google work on universities?.
From the Laszlo Bock book, Work Rules! One of the delightful side effects of this rigor is that the best people don’t always look like what you’d expect. When Google was small and hiring just a few hundred people a year, it was easy and efficient to hire only people with sterling pedigrees: graduates of Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and similar schools who had worked at only the most highly regarded companies. As we grew to need thousands of new employees each year, we learned that many of the best people didn’t go to those schools. Not shocking to you, perhaps, but these were early days at Google and, quite frankly, our approach was more elitist then. We were still managing people issues based on our best instincts, which could be just as flawed as anyone else’s, instead of complementing them with data.
Also, try searching for Moneyball at Work -- not a title but a cliche used for reporting these sorts of finding.
Every Tory attempt to make it less likely that people vote.From individual voter registration to not mentioning the deadline for registration to voter I'D checks is carefully considered for political advantage.
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
A good rule of thumb is that anyone saying things like: "To argue anything else is madness." does not have a particularly strong argument to make, as all they are trying to do is shut down debate in their own mind.
Every Tory attempt to make it less likely that people vote.From individual voter registration to not mentioning the deadline for registration to voter I'D checks is carefully considered for political advantage.
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
They've won the last three by increasing their vote, rather than by suppressing the Labour vote.
Every Tory attempt to make it less likely that people vote.From individual voter registration to not mentioning the deadline for registration to voter I'D checks is carefully considered for political advantage.
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
A good rule of thumb is that anyone saying things like: "To argue anything else is madness." does not have a particularly strong argument to make, as all they are trying to do is shut down debate in their own mind.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Appreciate a well thought out betting post, but I can't agree. FTPA means that we only have an early election if:
1. PM wants one and can get it through Parliament; 2. Vote of no confidence.
I don't see why May would seek a snap election pre-Brexit, and I'm far from convinced a replacement Tory leader would either given how close to the negotiation deadline we'd be after a leadership election had elapsed. No confidence isn't impossible, but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? Likewise with the DUP, if anything customs union ensures no border in the Irish sea so they may be mollified.
10/1 isn't bad odds, but I think the bookies are basically right that 2019 is the year to watch. If we get past that then 2022 is a real possibility.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
Some vivid descriptions, much obliged.
'has some competencies' is a fabulous backhanded complement.
Who are momentum backing? If they operate in Wales.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Appreciate a well thought out betting post, but I can't agree. FTPA means that we only have an early election if:
1. PM wants one and can get it through Parliament; 2. Vote of no confidence.
I don't see why May would seek a snap election pre-Brexit, and I'm far from convinced a replacement Tory leader would either given how close to the negotiation deadline we'd be after a leadership election had elapsed. No confidence isn't impossible, but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? Likewise with the DUP, if anything customs union ensures no border in the Irish sea so they may be mollified.
10/1 isn't bad odds, but I think the bookies are basically right that 2019 is the year to watch. If we get past that then 2022 is a real possibility.
"but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? "
Every Tory attempt to make it less likely that people vote.From individual voter registration to not mentioning the deadline for registration to voter I'D checks is carefully considered for political advantage.
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
A good rule of thumb is that anyone saying things like: "To argue anything else is madness." does not have a particularly strong argument to make, as all they are trying to do is shut down debate in their own mind.
I find it remarkable that americans put up with such long campaigns - it seems a) extremely irritating, and b) means that members of congress, governors and others don't do their jobs properly half the time as they are preparing presidential runs.
The basic US system of government is still admirable. The barnacles that have grown atop it are not.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
THe equal representation in the Senate is a good idea. It "protects" small states from domination of larger states.
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
There is not the bias you think there is in the electoral college.
The departure of Carwyn is evidence of the tectonic plates shifting in Wales.
The resignation was a surprise. Carwyn was bullish about his future until a day or so ago. Eight years behind him, a few more to come. Carwyn always wanted "to do the Thatcher", to complete the 10 years.
It always pays to be suspicious when politicians depart suddenly, muttering about ‘family reasons’ and "having to put the kids first".
This suddenness is surely connected directly to the report on the death of Carl Sergeant which apparently cannot be released "for legal reasons".
More likely, it cannot be released as it will cause an absolute torrent of shit to flow.
Can you give us a prognosis on the Welsh scene?
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
Some vivid descriptions, much obliged.
'has some competencies' is a fabulous backhanded complement.
Who are momentum backing? If they operate in Wales.
They certainly operate in Wales. Remember, Owen Smith could not even persuade his own Pontypridd constituency party to support him in his leadership battle with Jeremy.
And SwanseaDan -- who is now paying damages & legal costs to Byron Davies XMP -- is a Corbynista.
My guess is that Unite will support Gething, and the Corbynistas will support Drakeford.
And -- as it Wales -- there is the usual dissonance between Labour's Welsh speakers, who will prefer Drakeford or Eluned Morgan, and Labour's Brit-Nationalists (like the deceased Carl Sergeant) who will prefer Gething or Skates.
From the Laszlo Bock book, Work Rules! One of the delightful side effects of this rigor is that the best people don’t always look like what you’d expect. When Google was small and hiring just a few hundred people a year, it was easy and efficient to hire only people with sterling pedigrees: graduates of Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and similar schools who had worked at only the most highly regarded companies. As we grew to need thousands of new employees each year, we learned that many of the best people didn’t go to those schools. Not shocking to you, perhaps, but these were early days at Google and, quite frankly, our approach was more elitist then. We were still managing people issues based on our best instincts, which could be just as flawed as anyone else’s, instead of complementing them with data.
Also, try searching for Moneyball at Work -- not a title but a cliche used for reporting these sorts of finding.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Appreciate a well thought out betting post, but I can't agree. FTPA means that we only have an early election if:
1. PM wants one and can get it through Parliament; 2. Vote of no confidence.
I don't see why May would seek a snap election pre-Brexit, and I'm far from convinced a replacement Tory leader would either given how close to the negotiation deadline we'd be after a leadership election had elapsed. No confidence isn't impossible, but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? Likewise with the DUP, if anything customs union ensures no border in the Irish sea so they may be mollified.
10/1 isn't bad odds, but I think the bookies are basically right that 2019 is the year to watch. If we get past that then 2022 is a real possibility.
"but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? "
That's the unknown. imho it's a 'yes'.
The hardliners certainly care more about the customs union than they do about free movement of people, but voting against the government on a confidence motion (or threatening to) wouldn't be a viable way of getting what they want. Their only chance would be a challenge to May's leadership within the Tory party. Even then she'd be likely to win a confidence vote and that would cement her in place for at least a year.
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1. Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho. But as ever, DYOR!
Appreciate a well thought out betting post, but I can't agree. FTPA means that we only have an early election if:
1. PM wants one and can get it through Parliament; 2. Vote of no confidence.
I don't see why May would seek a snap election pre-Brexit, and I'm far from convinced a replacement Tory leader would either given how close to the negotiation deadline we'd be after a leadership election had elapsed. No confidence isn't impossible, but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? Likewise with the DUP, if anything customs union ensures no border in the Irish sea so they may be mollified.
10/1 isn't bad odds, but I think the bookies are basically right that 2019 is the year to watch. If we get past that then 2022 is a real possibility.
"but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? "
That's the unknown. imho it's a 'yes'.
Genuine Q: Why do you think this would be the tipping point? I'm unsure, but my logic for leaning against is that they didn't trigger a ballot or no confidence over the backstop position or 'Brexit bill', among others.
Comments
Just watch the asylum numbers go through the roof with Jeremy and mates.
I note the Labour administration has the tiniest of majorities, propped up by a single LD who holds the Education portfolio. Has she made any difference at all?
Wales is one of the poorest parts of the country, and the education and health systems both seem backward. It’s depressing.
Also trying to stop the tidy up of illegal voting which gives Labour huge advantage.
And then there’s the stabbings. There seems to be one murder a week in my neighbourhood. It’s really not clear that Zac is taking it seriously, his main instinct seems to be to avoid blame.
Had we had some form of ID card or citizens card or public services card held by all those legally entitled to live here perhaps the Windrush cases could have been resolved more easily rather than relying on decades old records which can get mislaid or destroyed. Even Ireland has a public services ID card now - and almost all EU nations have national ID cards. Those ID cards can even be used as effective passports to travel in the EU and EEA area.
I was listening to a phone in earlier and a retired Home office civil servant came on and commented that the main reason we didn't have an ID card was because ministers didn't actually want us to find out how many people were actually living here. Far better to rely on middle class interviewers with a clipboard sampling a few people At airports to work out what our net population growth was annually excluding births and deaths than have a registration system that would tell us the real story as most European democracies have.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/22/john-delaney-maryland-2020-presidential-bid-544917
Currently there are enormous differences in the odds being offered against a 2018 General Election with Ladbrokes (and Corals) offering 10/1, whilst Hills go with a far more meagre 3/1.
Given the Government's seemingly intractable problems over the question of a Customs Union and the resulting stress not only within Tory ranks but also in terms of its continuing reliance on support from the DUP, a GE over the near term, ie during 2018, appears far more likely than it did even a couple of months ago, making the Ladbrokes' odds look distinctly attractive imho.
But as ever, DYOR!
That's actually a very 'convenient' way to deport people if a government has malign intent. Let them leave then edit their online file so that they're stopped at the airport on their return.
I agree this is a little high given the intractability of the customs union issue.
I wonder when US ‘progressives’ will start seriously agitating to change equal representation for the states in the Senate. I imagine they’ll focus on the electoral college first.
Would UK automatic right of entry to Indians, for example ?
Plus loads more, in front and behind the camera
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/04/sky-news-anchors-leave-shipandrew-wilson-lorna-dunkley-samantha-simmond
Under corbyn,labour will build on it by thousands upon thousands of new asylum seekers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5643053/Shock-figures-half-graduates-worst-universities-arent-repaying-loans.html
It is a total illusion that is being sold to kids that going to any uni to do any old course will do them good.
I ignored that and studied history.
It wouldn’t surprise me if that became mainstream, given the equality agenda in this country.
The First Minister of Scotland has inexplicably stated that the international tendering for auxiliary vessel contracts is a betrayal for the Clyde, despite the yards having no interest in them, having never been promised them and the fact the vessels couldn’t physically fit on the slipway.
When a friend of mine worked at BAE in Scotstoun he was tasked with carrying out the maths that showed that on launch HMS Diamond would not ram into @intuBraehead. On the day she stopped short by 6 inches. Current RFA Solid Support ships are 30m longer than Diamond. FYI.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/scottish-first-minister-claims-support-ship-work-not-going-to-the-clyde-is-betrayal-despite-vessels-not-being-physically-able-to-fit/
So unless you can describe what a "hostile, but only if you're here illegally" environment looks like, we should accept there's fundamentally a trade-off here.
Just look at his front bench and his supporters like mason on immigration,these people loved what Merkel did.
https://news.sky.com/story/naked-gunman-kills-three-in-waffle-house-shooting-in-nashville-tennessee-11342418
However, the electoral college is absolutely rubbish. Apart from allowing the election of a candidate who could lose by several million votes, it effectively means the campaign takes place in only about 10 states and very intensively in about 5.
Who campaigns in CA, NY, TX, IL etc as well as in AK, WY, ND, SD and many other small states ?
This is an affront to democracy.
For the Presidential elections each and every vote should be equal.
If controlling mass immigration is seeing it Increase to the highest levels ever you sort of wonder what exactly she has achieved.
They see university as as a Good Thing (TM). Whether they ever pay the debt is more a question for the people who make the rules than the people who actually go.
The selling of illusions starts early now. What actual understanding of Physics do you need for a GCSE? - probably almost none. I can tell you that the required level of understanding of statistics for an MA at one of these newer universities is almost none too.
I remember a good understanding of Fourier transforms being pretty obligatory in some fields - that's a decent hurdle. The replacement with 'tieing your own shoe-laces' seems a step back.
This is just the backstop, which needs to be accepted in the next couple of months. The actual trade agreement will come after we leave next year. Mrs May could say to Leavers, this is just the backstop, we agree it so we can leave the EU. focus on the big prize and then we can get a much better deal later, blah blah...
Mrs May might agree the backstop and then resign or be pushed out. It's hard to see a general election before the Conservative leadership is sorted out. One or both will take place in the context of leadership or general elections happening during the most critical moments of the Brexit negotiations.
I don't see it happening. Maybe 10-1 is acceptable odds.
The Labour party doesn't have a majority in the Assembly, but rely on the sole LibDem (Kirsty Williams) and a Plaid Cymru renegade (Dafydd Ellis-Thomas) to prop them up. Carwyn was very good at tickling the egos of KW and DET. That skill will be needed by his successor.
The runners & riders are
Mark Drakeford -- former academic, on the Corbyn wing. Personality of a desiccated ball of dry dust.
Ken Skates -- the epitome of a smarmy, cappuccino-swilling, back-stabbing New Labour politician.
Vaughan Gething -- unexciting. Excellent connections with the Unions.
Eluned Morgan -- probably the least worst option, as she has some competencies. She is probably the one the opposition parties fear the most.
However, we've just had an election for Carwyn's Deputy where the Unions voted one way, and the members another way (shades of the election of Ed Miliband).
The union's sweetheart won (Carolyn Harris).
On that basis, I'd tip Vaughan Gething. He has few enemies, there is nothing there to dislike. He is (probably) not implicated in the Carl Sergeant imbroglio, more details of which will I expect gradually emerge.
He'll probably keep the Welsh Labour ship afloat for a little longer.
For me, this is one of the vital factors to be considered in any electoral process: it has to make mass fraud very difficult without being noticed.
The mainstream press is ridiculously London-centric and it’s good to hear updates from other parts of the U.K.
As to the electoral college, it's purely convention that all the states choose their electors by popular vote: it used to be that many states, especially in the antebellum South, had their legislatures select them. There is nothing in the constitution to stop states going back to that, or even select the electors by lottery.
Consequentially there is a National Popular Vote interstate compact[1] that would require the compacting states to allocate their electors proportionally to the national popular vote. This compact will come into effect once states comprising more than 50% of the electoral college sign up. Currently about 30% of the EC by states is signed up, including the biggies like CA and NY, but as it's predominately a Democrat-led initiative the chances of making the 50% any time soon are slim, as it'll require at least some Republican-controlled states to reach the target.
[1] States aren't supposed to make treaties with each other, "compacts" are a way around this
'has some competencies' is a fabulous backhanded complement.
The relevant clause reads - “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate...” - so in theory, a constitutional amendment could be passed by the normal route depriving (for example) North Dakota of one of its Senators, and providing North Dakota assented, the amendment would be valid.
Looks like it's a case of ARWNBPM
And just why are Labour so concerned with a convicted election fraudster in the leaders office?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2018
To argue anything else is madness.
The only way the Tories win is by making it more difficult to vote.
One of the delightful side effects of this rigor is that the best people don’t always look like what you’d expect. When Google was small and hiring just a few hundred people a year, it was easy and efficient to hire only people with sterling pedigrees: graduates of Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and similar schools who had worked at only the most highly regarded companies. As we grew to need thousands of new employees each year, we learned that many of the best people didn’t go to those schools. Not shocking to you, perhaps, but these were early days at Google and, quite frankly, our approach was more elitist then. We were still managing people issues based on our best instincts, which could be just as flawed as anyone else’s, instead of complementing them with data.
Also, try searching for Moneyball at Work -- not a title but a cliche used for reporting these sorts of finding.
1. PM wants one and can get it through Parliament;
2. Vote of no confidence.
I don't see why May would seek a snap election pre-Brexit, and I'm far from convinced a replacement Tory leader would either given how close to the negotiation deadline we'd be after a leadership election had elapsed. No confidence isn't impossible, but do the hardliners really hate the customs union (which needn't carry free movement of people with it) to trigger one given they can try and ditch May without a general election? Likewise with the DUP, if anything customs union ensures no border in the Irish sea so they may be mollified.
10/1 isn't bad odds, but I think the bookies are basically right that 2019 is the year to watch. If we get past that then 2022 is a real possibility.
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/988066647629058048
That's the unknown. imho it's a 'yes'.
And SwanseaDan -- who is now paying damages & legal costs to Byron Davies XMP -- is a Corbynista.
My guess is that Unite will support Gething, and the Corbynistas will support Drakeford.
And -- as it Wales -- there is the usual dissonance between Labour's Welsh speakers, who will prefer Drakeford or Eluned Morgan, and Labour's Brit-Nationalists (like the deceased Carl Sergeant) who will prefer Gething or Skates.