Well, my husband who lives in the adjoining constituency just said this about Mr W: "A wiffly sort of character. Neither now't nor summat."
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
His partner is Isabel Hardman who is very outspoken about her own depression
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
When I was a student around 1960 at one of the old Techs we had an engineering department which offered degrees and HND's in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering.There were about 500-600 students in all, and in my last year ...... big shock......one of them was female. Now I gather a student body like that would have 75-90 girls.
The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
Is it not the case that treaties are made by the Executive but require legislation to ratify them before coming into force? But such legislation cannot be amended because a treaty involves an independent third party - in this case the EU. What the HoL is trying to do is in violation of this.
Originally treaty ratification was purely by the executive under Royal Prerogative but from the 1920s the "Ponsonby Rule" was adopted whereby treaties would be laid before Parliament 21 days before ratification which gives Parliament the opportunity to object to ratification, and in 2010 this rule was given statutory effect.
Sometimes a treaty requires the UK to adopt specified legislation, e.g. to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the UK had to legislate to make causing nuclear explosions a crime. Sometimes legislation is practically required for things like authorizing expenditure to comply with a treaty. Parliament could amend or reject any such legislation, and if the government could not come up with any workarounds, I imagine it would have to notify the other parties that it is unable to comply with the treaty or seek a revision to it.
In the US, as a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate is required to ratify treaties, it's not unheard of for the US government to sign a treaty but not seek Senatorial ratification if they think that's unachievable, instead they inform the other parties that they will abide by the treaty's principles as closely as they legally can. I think the aforementioned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an example.
Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested
Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.
They are not mutually exclusive.
It is for the purposes of breaking down walls. After all, most HS's are seen as 'failures' by their political rivals ...
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
When I was a student around 1960 at one of the old Techs we had an engineering department which offered degrees and HND's in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering.There were about 500-600 students in all, and in my last year ...... big shock......one of them was female. Now I gather a student body like that would have 75-90 girls.
When I started my Geo eng degree (which I did not complete) in 1991, there were two girls in about thirty or forty. That's wrong. Although the ratio of female lecturers was probably much higher.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
Constitutional vandalism? Calling for the abolition of the unelected HoL and replacing it with an elected (or at least partly elected) second chamber?
I'm sure you'd find people from all sides of the political debate including passionate Remainers, who thin it's time we had an elected (or part elected) second chamber.
That's why if it went to a referendum I suspect you'd be talking a majority of 70%+ in favour of abolition and an elected HoL.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
Constitutional vandalism? Calling for the abolition of the unelected HoL and replacing it with an elected (or at least partly elected) second chamber?
I'm sure you'd find people from all sides of the political debate including passionate Remainers, who thin it's time we had an elected (or part elected) second chamber.
That's why if it went to a referendum I suspect you'd be talking a majority of 70%+ in favour of abolition and an elected HoL.
Abolition and Unicameralism for me.
After leaving the EU, and abolishing the Lords the Tory government will be progressing well on Labours 1983 manifesto pledges!
That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.
But the problem is that historically many jokely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.
They are not mutually exclusive.
It is for the purposes of breaking down walls. After all, most HS's are seen as 'failures' by their political rivals ...
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
they were instructed by the people to take back control from EU rule not give back control to brussels which is what the are trying to implement by the back door
The UK Sovereign Parliament will decide the next steps.
That's what you wanted.
You won!
Suck it up...
Once again a propagandist fails to understand what “parliamentary sovereignty” means
Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
So what’s the point? I’m struggling to get this one.
they're being economic with the actualite ?
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course. The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
It should be blocked in the public interest
oligopolies help no-one
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight property
Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.
So what’s the point? I’m struggling to get this one.
they're being economic with the actualite ?
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course. The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
It should be blocked in the public interest
oligopolies help no-one
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight property
Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
The figure quoted today was
So what’s the point? I’m struggling to get this one.
they're being economic with the actualite ?
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course. The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
It should be blocked in the public interest
oligopolies help no-one
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
What I will say is that this country
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight property
Smaller stores, fewer product lines, fewer staff, nearly entirely own brands, no shareholders.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.
The father of gun violence victim Tanesha Melbourne appeared in court today charged with involvement in a multi-million pound drug ring.
Conrad Kingdom, 45, spoke only to confirm his name and address at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing following police raids on his home and other properties in Tottenham, north London.
Following the raid, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Democracy is worth a great deal.
I quite like your attempt to channel Andrea Leadsom. It goes well with the antirational hysteria from earlier today about prostitution.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and th descendants of robber barons.
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Golly.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and th descendants of robber barons.
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
I'e always thought the HoL as presently constituted makes no sense in the 21st Century. It didn't make any sense in the 20th either.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.
Of course their 'best judgement' is always about what is good for the nation and never based upon their own prejudices and self-interests.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.
That's not true for all of them, but even "a chamber of people whose political careers are over" is better than " a chamber of people whose political careers are still ongoing and will do anything to further their careers"
The father of gun violence victim Tanesha Melbourne appeared in court today charged with involvement in a multi-million pound drug ring.
Conrad Kingdom, 45, spoke only to confirm his name and address at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing following police raids on his home and other properties in Tottenham, north London.
Following the raid, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.
Of course their 'best judgement' is always about what is good for the nation and never based upon their own prejudices and self-interests.
Well, I knew what the prejudices and much of the self-interest of the current MP were when I voted for her opponent!
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Labour's 1983 manifesto: Take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of parliament to remove its legislative powers - with the exception of those which relate to the life of a parliament.
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
I thought that that was precisely the worry that the Brexiteers were expressing? That the HoL has enabled the EU loving HoC to scupper Brexit? That is how it was reported on the R4 news
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Golly.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?
Labour's 1983 manifesto: Take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of parliament to remove its legislative powers - with the exception of those which relate to the life of a parliament.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Triumph of the Will is a distrubingly good film, great for understanding the dark appeal of Nazism, but Ken Loach, for all his hardline politics, is a very good filmmaker.
I understand your urge to destroy, which is why I too support a WTO Brexit. We can only face up to the error of our decision iwe experience the full strength of the grapes.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Golly.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?
Wow. Just wow.
So the British people cannot vote themselves out of the EU in your world? Just reflect on that a tad.
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Golly.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?
We had a vote about it, dear, and that was what the people decided. Now you have a nice rest, and nurse will bring you a cup of tea.
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?
So the projected national share figures were pretty much in line with the opinion polls although the LDs were a bit higher in the local elections as they usually are.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Triumph of the Will is a distrubingly good film, great for understanding the dark appeal of Nazism, but Ken Loach, for all his hardline politics, is a very good filmmaker.
I understand your urge to destroy, which is why I too support a WTO Brexit. We can only face up to the error of our decision iwe experience the full strength of the grapes.
Stop it Foxy with your defeatist WTO talk.....I kind of thought of that nihilistic defeatism, but now I much rather call out Brexit ideologues as a bunch of rabid, rightwing, nitwit morons who are not going to bring this country down.....
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO. I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible. It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
I am certainly very concerned about a HoC, which is over-represented by Conservatives and Labour - especially when both of them seem to have had their totals boosted by dodgy practices.
And the problem with your stating that Mrs May is just "carrying out the vote to leave"· is precisely that the referendum did not specify which kind of Leave was meant. And Mrs May didn`t then come back to Parliament to ask our MPs as a whole - she just caved in to her own backwoodsmen. And tried to grab dictatorial powers on the back of it - for herself in the first place, and then possibly for Mr Corbyn as well in due course.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
Is it not the case that treaties are made by the Executive but require legislation to ratify them before coming into force? But such legislation cannot be amended because a treaty involves an independent third party - in this case the EU. What the HoL is trying to do is in violation of this.
Originally treaty ratification was purely by the executive under Royal Prerogative but from the 1920s the "Ponsonby Rule" was adopted whereby treaties would be laid before Parliament 21 days before ratification which gives Parliament the opportunity to object to ratification, and in 2010 this rule was given statutory effect.
Sometimes a treaty requires the UK to adopt specified legislation, e.g. to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the UK had to legislate to make causing nuclear explosions a crime. Sometimes legislation is practically required for things like authorizing expenditure to comply with a treaty. Parliament could amend or reject any such legislation, and if the government could not come up with any workarounds, I imagine it would have to notify the other parties that it is unable to comply with the treaty or seek a revision to it.
In the US, as a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate is required to ratify treaties, it's not unheard of for the US government to sign a treaty but not seek Senatorial ratification if they think that's unachievable, instead they inform the other parties that they will abide by the treaty's principles as closely as they legally can. I think the aforementioned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an example.
So we inform the EU that we will abide by the Brexit treaty as closely as we legally can? I wonder whether the EU would find that acceptable?
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
If they can use the Parliament Act for hunting they can use it for anything.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?
If they need any Labour Leavers to give a seat to, I am open to persuasion...
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO. I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible. It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail Brexit If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hate
I am certainly very concerned about a HoC, which is over-represented by Conservatives and Labour - especially when both of them seem to have had their totals boosted by dodgy practices.
And the problem with your stating that Mrs May is just "carrying out the vote to leave"· is precisely that the referendum did not specify which kind of Leave was meant. And Mrs May didn`t then come back to Parliament to ask our MPs as a whole - she just caved in to her own backwoodsmen. And tried to grab dictatorial powers on the back of it - for herself in the first place, and then possibly for Mr Corbyn as well in due course.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
The Peer for a Year answer can count me in.....
We’re forgetting the Lords Spiritual.
If my country called, the Diocese of Winchester wouldn’t be too bad...
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.
Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.
So we can afford to wait for the anti-Brexit Lords & Ladies to die off?
Leavers say that Labour are using the peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 2018.
Blair stated that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 1998.
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
And if it wasn't for Brexit the UK wouldn't have had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit, 15 years of falling home ownership, a decade of productivity stagnation and trillions in debt.
I'm sure we could manage to blame Brexit for our Middle Eastern warmongering and the student tuition fees shambles if we really tried.
Leavers say that Labour are using the peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 2018.
Blair stated that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 1998.
And what followed in 1999?
You can do a lot with a three figure majority when you’re in no particular hurry.
When you have no majority and you’re in a fearful hurry, the calculation changes.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.
Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.
The figure quoted today was
So what’s the point? I’m struggling to get this one.
they're being economic with the actualite ?
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course. The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
It should be blocked in the public interest
oligopolies help no-one
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.
What I will say is that this country
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight property
Smaller stores, fewer product lines, fewer staff, nearly entirely own brands, no shareholders.
I think that Theo Albrecht’s family might disagree with you on “no shareholders”
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.
2 Childs Hill seats and 2 Hale seats I reckon will win it for Labour.
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.
Very good point and very well made....and one that would also make someone like me revaluate my republican beliefs...
I always thought that the collective wisdom of the great British public pretty much made the right decision....and then up came Brexit, and that was the end of that fantasy....
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.
I wonder if there might be a Conservative gain or two in West Hendon ward.
Its always been Labour but has swung steadily to the Conservatives after 2006.
IIRC Boris was ahead there in 2012 - almost certainly because of a high turnout of Jewish voters against Ken Livingstone.
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.
I wonder if there might be a Conservative gain or two in West Hendon ward.
Its always been Labour but has swung steadily to the Conservatives after 2006.
IIRC Boris was ahead there in 2012 - almost certainly because of a high turnout of Jewish voters against Ken Livingstone.
That has certainly been the Conservatives hope by massively increasing home ownership in West Hendon through the regeneration efforts. I don’t see it playing out that way though. West Hendon regeneration has not gone down well.
So the projected national share figures were pretty much in line with the opinion polls although the LDs were a bit higher in the local elections as they usually are.
Based on today's Mori there has been a swing of 2.5% to the Tories from Labour and a swing of 4% from the LDs to the Tories since May 2014 which could make Thursday night interesting if repeated in the local elections
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Why are rich people generally a) very greedy and obsessed about getting richer, and b) tight, mean fisted fuckers?...a bit of generalising, but you get my drift....
When I was bob a jobbing around south Manchester as a kid, I always found the council estates much more lucrative than the wealthy suburbs around Hale and Bowden....
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.
Why would Wallmart take a lower share of voting rights than size entitles them to ?
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Get in there MySon....
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.
Very good point and very well made....and one that would also make someone like me revaluate my republican beliefs...
I always thought that the collective wisdom of the great British public pretty much made the right decision....and then up came Brexit, and that was the end of that fantasy....
One has to take the rough with the smooth. Had I been around at the time, I would have been pissed off by the result of the 1945 election, and I was pissed off by the results in 1997 and 2001, but it's better to live in a country where people can vote to take a decision I disapprove of than one where it's taken out of their hands.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
Nah. Too much like hard work. Only reason i’d do it is so my daughter could get married in St Mary Undercroft
I note the likes of ‘Royal Blue’ are saying Pure Brexit should be implemented even if the economic cost is huge. It’s good to see extremism is alive and well on PB.
I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insist
If they can use the Parliament Act for hunting they can use it for anything.
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.
Why would Wallmart take a lower share of voting rights than size entitles them to ?
Is there some regulatory reason ?
Sainsbury's are paying them to. Additionally it means that if WM ever decides to sell their stake they won't be able to sell more than 29.9% of voting rights, any more than that and it triggers certain takeover rules.
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?
Why are rich people generally a) very greedy and obsessed about getting richer, and b) tight, mean fisted fuckers?...a bit of generalising, but you get my drift....
When I was bob a jobbing around south Manchester as a kid, I always found the council estates much more lucrative than the wealthy suburbs around Hale and Bowden....
Wasn't there a financial aspect in your move to Norfolk from the delights of Tuscany ?
Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
And if it wasn't for Brexit the UK wouldn't have had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit, 15 years of falling home ownership, a decade of productivity stagnation and trillions in debt.
I'm sure we could manage to blame Brexit for our Middle Eastern warmongering and the student tuition fees shambles if we really tried.
It is Globalisation that’s chewing this country up for the last half century, so those of us around the last fifty years and older can see and feel the decline. It’s no longer just Telegraph readers who feel the British government just doesn’t have control that matters anymore, the Brexit vote proves that. Globalisation and the ineptitude of successive governments mismanaging this nations decline, particularly Blair and his government pig ignorant to the dangers here of globalisation wasting a crucial decade for this country, fanning flames when they should have been treating the burns.
If you fear more globalisation and the next Silk Road, the idea of Global Britain needs explaining you know.
Comments
Now I gather a student body like that would have 75-90 girls.
Sometimes a treaty requires the UK to adopt specified legislation, e.g. to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the UK had to legislate to make causing nuclear explosions a crime. Sometimes legislation is practically required for things like authorizing expenditure to comply with a treaty. Parliament could amend or reject any such legislation, and if the government could not come up with any workarounds, I imagine it would have to notify the other parties that it is unable to comply with the treaty or seek a revision to it.
In the US, as a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate is required to ratify treaties, it's not unheard of for the US government to sign a treaty but not seek Senatorial ratification if they think that's unachievable, instead they inform the other parties that they will abide by the treaty's principles as closely as they legally can. I think the aforementioned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an example.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXPMm-qLarw
Has plod got round to investigating the Bex Bailey allegations of six months ago yet ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
https://twitter.com/Barkercartoons/status/990913900039299072?s=19
I'm sure you'd find people from all sides of the political debate including passionate Remainers, who thin it's time we had an elected (or part elected) second chamber.
That's why if it went to a referendum I suspect you'd be talking a majority of 70%+ in favour of abolition and an elected HoL.
After leaving the EU, and abolishing the Lords the Tory government will be progressing well on Labours 1983 manifesto pledges!
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Long queues at checkout = avoid.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
Post of the month
Conrad Kingdom, 45, spoke only to confirm his name and address at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing following police raids on his home and other properties in Tottenham, north London.
Following the raid, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
https://tinyurl.com/yc3nv76h
The media - in particular the BBC - made a big deal about the shooting of this girl, I hope they go back and revisit the story as more comes to light.
I quite like your attempt to channel Andrea Leadsom. It goes well with the antirational hysteria from earlier today about prostitution.
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
Why are all the Brexiteers pissing their pants?
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
http://www.phm.org.uk/keemu/display.php?irn=5965
"Labour clears the way"
Only taken them 108 years so far...
I understand your urge to destroy, which is why I too support a WTO Brexit. We can only face up to the error of our decision iwe experience the full strength of the grapes.
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
So the British people cannot vote themselves out of the EU in your world? Just reflect on that a tad.
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?
Lab 35.3%
Con 32.3%
UKIP 14.0%
LD 9.0%
Greens 4.1%
Others 5.2%
So the projected national share figures were pretty much in line with the opinion polls although the LDs were a bit higher in the local elections as they usually are.
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
And the problem with your stating that Mrs May is just "carrying out the vote to leave"· is precisely that the referendum did not specify which kind of Leave was meant. And Mrs May didn`t then come back to Parliament to ask our MPs as a whole - she just caved in to her own backwoodsmen. And tried to grab dictatorial powers on the back of it - for herself in the first place, and then possibly for Mr Corbyn as well in due course.
Good evening, everybody.
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
Presumably you don't consider this sort of thing 'dodgy practices'?
Otherwise you'd be open to accusations of hypocrisy, right?
If my country called, the Diocese of Winchester wouldn’t be too bad...
Leavers say that Labour are using the peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 2018.
Blair stated that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 1998.
And what followed in 1999?
I'm sure we could manage to blame Brexit for our Middle Eastern warmongering and the student tuition fees shambles if we really tried.
When you have no majority and you’re in a fearful hurry, the calculation changes.
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
I always thought that the collective wisdom of the great British public pretty much made the right decision....and then up came Brexit, and that was the end of that fantasy....
Its always been Labour but has swung steadily to the Conservatives after 2006.
IIRC Boris was ahead there in 2012 - almost certainly because of a high turnout of Jewish voters against Ken Livingstone.
When I was bob a jobbing around south Manchester as a kid, I always found the council estates much more lucrative than the wealthy suburbs around Hale and Bowden....
Is there some regulatory reason ?
If you fear more globalisation and the next Silk Road, the idea of Global Britain needs explaining you know.