That's outrageous. Having failed miserably at the task of delivering Brexit, DD is now sniping from the sidelines at those who have to clear up his mess after he flounced off. What a chump.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
That's outrageous. Having failed miserably at the task of delivering Brexit, DD is now sniping from the sidelines at those who have to clear up his mess after he flounced off. What a chump.
That's a Mandelsonian "chump", I assume. And an utter one, to boot.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
LONDON (AP) — Julian Assange had just pulled off one of the biggest scoops in journalistic history, splaying the innards of American diplomacy across the web. But technology firms were cutting ties to his WikiLeaks website, cable news pundits were calling for his head and a Swedish sex crime case was threatening to put him behind bars.
Caught in a vise, the silver-haired Australian wrote to the Russian Consulate in London.
“I, Julian Assange, hereby grant full authority to my friend, Israel Shamir, to both drop off and collect my passport, in order to get a visa,” said the letter , which was obtained exclusively by The Associated Press.
The Nov. 30, 2010, missive is part of a much larger trove of WikiLeaks emails, chat logs, financial records, secretly recorded footage and other documents leaked to the AP. The files provide both an intimate look at the radical transparency organization and an early hint of Assange’s budding relationship with Moscow.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
I agree with that. If TM deal falls, I back a second referendum. No deal/wto is a non starter
Lets never forget Boris told Airbus to FO, and other ultra leavers are happy for us to sacrifice our manufacturing , Scotland and Northern Ireland in their barmy Little Englander charge to disaster
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
The other 48% (which includes me) won't get ignored if it's something like Chequers. It's a very reasonable compromise which implements Brexit, as instructed in the People's Vote we had in 2016, but does a pretty good job of addressing the principal concerns on the economy.
I disagree with Mr Meeks implied position that only MPs should be considered to be future Prime Ministers. The fact that a leader of a devolved party is being considered credible says less about any alleged paucity of talent within Westminster and more about the increasing maturity of devolved [especially Scottish] politics.
While not a perfect analogy within the USA Presidents tend to be a mix of former Governors from the States or Senators [Holyrood-equivalent] from central Congress [Westminster-equivalent].
Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush, Truman, Nixon and Ford were all governors.
Nixon ran for governor (of California), and lost. He was a Congressman, Senator and Vice President before becoming President. Ford was a Congressman (and, of course, VP). Truman was a Senator.
Indeed but Carter, Reagan, Clinton and W. Bush were all "just" Governors.
If devolved politics is taken seriously there's no reason those who are in devolved roles can't be serious contenders.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
NORWAY.
Is not in the EU.
Ithankyou.
That doesn't work. Norway wasn't in the EU trying to leave. We have been starting from the position of being a full member. That means that things are very different from negotiating a new relationship from scratch.
Talks concluded at 2am when it was agreed that someone needed to go out for six pizzas, some kebabs, and another pack of rizlas.
Well, it had cocaine in it originally.
Until the 1920's, it seems, but in homeopathic proportions. From Snopes: ...the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year’s supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
NORWAY.
Is not in the EU.
Ithankyou.
That doesn't work. Norway wasn't in the EU trying to leave. We have been starting from the position of being a full member. That means that things are very different from negotiating a new relationship from scratch.
I'm sure they are but it is doable. The only thing that prevents the UK creating a meaningful deal with the EU is the anti-foreigner contingent. The anti-foreigner contingent will scupper any plan. Relax the UK's position on FoM and a deal is eminently doable.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
How about we agree that the four freedoms apply to those countries that partake in it? So Britain won't be undermining it when it leaves and that any deal on a less close relationship - one which excludes FoM for people, for example, works on a mutual basis?
That's dancing on the head of a pin even for you, David. It's quite clear as a non-Conservative we are being softened up for the usual Conservative line:
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
Dear me, you do sound rattled at the likelihood that she'll come up with a reasonable deal. If she does, then why on earth would it merit a mea culpa, or an admission of responsibility? She'd have successfully done what the voters commissioned her to do.
52%, the other 48% got ignored.
Can you tell me how you can come up with an outcome that will satisfy both sides on a binary referendum? Go on, give it a try.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Other than freedom of movement, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the social chapter, and so on - i.e. nearly all the reasons people voted to leave.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Other than freedom of movement, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the social chapter, and so on - i.e. nearly all the reasons people voted to leave.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
I'm not holding my breath to see Barnier agree to ending freedom of movement etc - he is still implacably insisting on the indivisibility of the four freedoms so what evidence do we have that it really will end?
May has shown she will concede time and again as Barnier turns his ratchet to remove reason after reason behind exiting. By the end of the process I fully expect her to have conceded freedom of movement as well as financial contributions etc
We need PR to facilitate both main parties to split and give us a multi-coloured swap shop parliament.
No
I am in favour of FPTP on the basis it limits the chances of headbanger parties winning seats.
Of course that assumes the "mainstream" parties are not fielding headbanger candidates, which may be a slight flaw currently...
One person's 'headbanger party' is not necessarily another's. Also, as you indicate FPTP has given us some headbangers e.g. Jared O'Mara and David Tredinnick. Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would give us a choice of personnel within parties and the vote would actually count. MPs would still be tied to a constituency and it would still be quite difficult for a headbanger to get elected, maybe more so than at the moment.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Other than freedom of movement, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the social chapter, and so on - i.e. nearly all the reasons people voted to leave.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
I'm not holding my breath to see Barnier agree to ending freedom of movement etc - he is still implacably insisting on the indivisibility of the four freedoms so what evidence do we have that it really will end?
May has shown she will concede time and again as Barnier turns his ratchet to remove reason after reason behind exiting. By the end of the process I fully expect her to have conceded freedom of movement as well as financial contributions etc
That's a different point altogether. The fact still remains that what May is trying to get is a good compromise. Whether she will succeed or not remains to be seen, but it's bizarre to criticise her in advance for what hasn't happened and for what she isn't seeking. In any case, Barnier seems to be pushing in the other direction if anything - a looser arrangement than Chequers, but we shall see.
Still, I'm glad that you're reasonably happy with Chequers as she's proposed it.
Speaking to the BBC's PM programme, Ms Bailey said the party had been given the review in May and that she had had to fight to read it herself, saying Labour had kicked it "into the long grass" and not implemented the suggestions.
Talks concluded at 2am when it was agreed that someone needed to go out for six pizzas, some kebabs, and another pack of rizlas.
Well, it had cocaine in it originally.
Until the 1920's, it seems, but in homeopathic proportions. From Snopes: ...the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year’s supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.
That might have been the position in the 20’s, but earlier there was more.
We need PR to facilitate both main parties to split and give us a multi-coloured swap shop parliament.
No
I am in favour of FPTP on the basis it limits the chances of headbanger parties winning seats.
Of course that assumes the "mainstream" parties are not fielding headbanger candidates, which may be a slight flaw currently...
One person's 'headbanger party' is not necessarily another's. Also, as you indicate FPTP has given us some headbangers e.g. Jared O'Mara and David Tredinnick. Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would give us a choice of personnel within parties and the vote would actually count. MPs would still be tied to a constituency and it would still be quite difficult for a headbanger to get elected, maybe more so than at the moment.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
No voting system can save you from the voters if they want to elect people you might see as headbangers. I'm a big fan of STV, but the Healey-Rae dynasty in Kerry is not exactly a good advert for it.
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
Speaking to the BBC's PM programme, Ms Bailey said the party had been given the review in May and that she had had to fight to read it herself, saying Labour had kicked it "into the long grass" and not implemented the suggestions.
We need PR to facilitate both main parties to split and give us a multi-coloured swap shop parliament.
No
I am in favour of FPTP on the basis it limits the chances of headbanger parties winning seats.
Of course that assumes the "mainstream" parties are not fielding headbanger candidates, which may be a slight flaw currently...
One person's 'headbanger party' is not necessarily another's. Also, as you indicate FPTP has given us some headbangers e.g. Jared O'Mara and David Tredinnick. Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would give us a choice of personnel within parties and the vote would actually count. MPs would still be tied to a constituency and it would still be quite difficult for a headbanger to get elected, maybe more so than at the moment.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
No voting system can save you from the voters if they want to elect people you might see as headbangers. I'm a big fan of STV, but the Healey-Rae dynasty in Kerry is not exactly a good advert for it.
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
The Single Stochastic Vote is a great idea, as we discussed the other night. I thought of another advantage of it, which is that it gives parties an incentive to listen to voters and campaign seriously in every constituency - after all, you might have only a 20% chance, but if you can get it up to 25% that extra 5% is worth just as much on average as an extra 5% in a currently safe or marginal seat.
It's a fine example of a curious phenomenon: something which is both perfectly logical and utterly barmy in practice.
Have you read The Last Ringbearer? It takes the view that The Lord of the Rings was "victor's history", and that Mordor was actually a progressive science-based state trying to free Middle Earth from the thrall of the supernatural elves etc. It was written by a Russian author and published there. The Tolkien estate stopped it ever getting published in English but samizdat translations can be found on t'Web.
We need PR to facilitate both main parties to split and give us a multi-coloured swap shop parliament.
No
I am in favour of FPTP on the basis it limits the chances of headbanger parties winning seats.
Of course that assumes the "mainstream" parties are not fielding headbanger candidates, which may be a slight flaw currently...
One person's 'headbanger party' is not necessarily another's. Also, as you indicate FPTP has given us some headbangers e.g. Jared O'Mara and David Tredinnick. Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would give us a choice of personnel within parties and the vote would actually count. MPs would still be tied to a constituency and it would still be quite difficult for a headbanger to get elected, maybe more so than at the moment.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
No voting system can save you from the voters if they want to elect people you might see as headbangers. I'm a big fan of STV, but the Healey-Rae dynasty in Kerry is not exactly a good advert for it.
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
The Single Stochastic Vote is a great idea, as we discussed the other night. I thought of another advantage of it, which is that it gives parties an incentive to listen to voters and campaign seriously in every constituency - after all, you might have only a 20% chance, but if you can get it up to 25% that extra 5% is worth just as much on average as an extra 5% in a safe or marginal seat.
It's a fine example of a curious phenomenon: something which is both perfectly logical and utterly barmy in practice.
Yes, seat targeting is still a thing in STV, but with SSV every vote counts (although not every vote is counted).
I'm sure that most of the people of Bootle would be outraged if they were represented by a Tory for one Parliament, eventually, but all those Tory voters there who stubbornly continued to vote would finally be rewarded - and similarly for Labour voters in rural Hampshire. It really is a magical idea.
Mr. rpjs, that's a really interesting perspective.
One thing that bugged me at the end (well, before the various ends) of the last film was the collapse of the earth that swallowed all the orcs. Why couldn't an orc make a living as a mercenary, smith, sailor, etc?
Lots of fantasy and sci-fi has a fodder race (Nazis can fulfil that function too, the guys it's completely fine to hate and want dead). One thing I did with Sir Edric was give him a best friend who was also a man-eating slaver, just to see how it'd work. Inherent evil (rather than just law-breaking) is interesting to consider.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
Mr. Urquhart, what a world, in which a line from Shakespeare can get you investigated.
In the right, or rather wrong context, there's probably quite a long list of Shakespeare quotes which could get you investigated. Or are you unfamiliar with Othello, Taming of the Shrew or The Merchant of Venice ?
I've never been too enthused with "let's kill all the lawyers".
Mr. rpjs, that's a really interesting perspective.
One thing that bugged me at the end (well, before the various ends) of the last film was the collapse of the earth that swallowed all the orcs. Why couldn't an orc make a living as a mercenary, smith, sailor, etc?
Lots of fantasy and sci-fi has a fodder race (Nazis can fulfil that function too, the guys it's completely fine to hate and want dead). One thing I did with Sir Edric was give him a best friend who was also a man-eating slaver, just to see how it'd work. Inherent evil (rather than just law-breaking) is interesting to consider.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
One of the most interesting aspects of the 'Order of the Stick' webcomic, which is actually a very deep, well characterised fantasy story, is it is set in a world which essentially follows the mechanics of tabletop RPGs, and in it the gods of its world really did create certain races to be fodder for the others, and they are nothappy about it, and it adds a great depth to some of the villains' motivations, even as they are still villainous.
We need PR to facilitate both main parties to split and give us a multi-coloured swap shop parliament.
No
I am in favour of FPTP on the basis it limits the chances of headbanger parties winning seats.
Of course that assumes the "mainstream" parties are not fielding headbanger candidates, which may be a slight flaw currently...
One person's 'headbanger party' is not necessarily another's. Also, as you indicate FPTP has given us some headbangers e.g. Jared O'Mara and David Tredinnick. Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would give us a choice of personnel within parties and the vote would actually count. MPs would still be tied to a constituency and it would still be quite difficult for a headbanger to get elected, maybe more so than at the moment.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
No voting system can save you from the voters if they want to elect people you might see as headbangers. I'm a big fan of STV, but the Healey-Rae dynasty in Kerry is not exactly a good advert for it.
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
The Single Stochastic Vote is a great idea, as we discussed the other night. I thought of another advantage of it, which is that it gives parties an incentive to listen to voters and campaign seriously in every constituency - after all, you might have only a 20% chance, but if you can get it up to 25% that extra 5% is worth just as much on average as an extra 5% in a safe or marginal seat.
It's a fine example of a curious phenomenon: something which is both perfectly logical and utterly barmy in practice.
Yes, seat targeting is still a thing in STV, but with SSV every vote counts (although not every vote is counted).
I'm sure that most of the people of Bootle would be outraged if they were represented by a Tory for one Parliament, eventually, but all those Tory voters there who stubbornly continued to vote would finally be rewarded - and similarly for Labour voters in rural Hampshire. It really is a magical idea.
I would love the Single Stochastic vote, if purely for the laughs. People who play the lottery will get how it works.
Ensuring that the voter is truly, and believed to be, randomly chosen might be a challenge.
Most PR systems have some sort of minimum threshold to exclude the real fringe parties (excepting a very 'pure' system like Israel's). STV also effectively imposes such through the mechanism of seat size - in a five member seat you need 1/6 of the vote to get elected, which is actually quite a lot, if at a local level.
No voting system can save you from the voters if they want to elect people you might see as headbangers. I'm a big fan of STV, but the Healey-Rae dynasty in Kerry is not exactly a good advert for it.
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
The Single Stochastic Vote is a great idea, as we discussed the other night. I thought of another advantage of it, which is that it gives parties an incentive to listen to voters and campaign seriously in every constituency - after all, you might have only a 20% chance, but if you can get it up to 25% that extra 5% is worth just as much on average as an extra 5% in a safe or marginal seat.
It's a fine example of a curious phenomenon: something which is both perfectly logical and utterly barmy in practice.
Yes, seat targeting is still a thing in STV, but with SSV every vote counts (although not every vote is counted).
I'm sure that most of the people of Bootle would be outraged if they were represented by a Tory for one Parliament, eventually, but all those Tory voters there who stubbornly continued to vote would finally be rewarded - and similarly for Labour voters in rural Hampshire. It really is a magical idea.
I would love the Single Stochastic vote, if purely for the laughs. People who play the lottery will get how it works.
Ensuring that the voter is truly, and believed to be, randomly chosen might be a challenge.
SSV is even better than AV.
I am perfectly happy with it provided that the voter selected is me.
God did the Scottish Tories get lucky with Ruth by the way. Annabelle Goldie was quite a nice granny but not in any way a contender for serious office. The others, well let's just say they have interesting back stories. Ruth has made the Tories the opposition in Scotland ahead of Labour almost single handed (she was in fairness helped by some self destructive self absorption in SLAB but I seriously doubt anyone else would have been able to take advantage of it).
Although she is a Unionist I think she is also proud of being a Scot. I think she thinks she can make more of a difference here than in Westminster and she is probably right. That said, (despite being a strong remainer) she is my kind of Tory and I would very much welcome her getting into the big pond at some point.
God did the Scottish Tories get lucky with Ruth by the way. Annabelle Goldie was quite a nice granny but not in any way a contender for serious office. The others, well let's just say they have interesting back stories. Ruth has made the Tories the opposition in Scotland ahead of Labour almost single handed (she was in fairness helped by some self destructive self absorption in SLAB but I seriously doubt anyone else would have been able to take advantage of it).
Although she is a Unionist I think she is also proud of being a Scot. I think she thinks she can make more of a difference here than in Westminster and she is probably right. That said, (despite being a strong remainer) she is my kind of Tory and I would very much welcome her getting into the big pond at some point.
Remember Ruth wouldn't even have been an MSP for the 2011 leadership contest if not for some internal SCon backstabbing removing the number 1 from the Glasgow list moments before the Holyrood election.
Mr. Urquhart, what a world, in which a line from Shakespeare can get you investigated.
In the right, or rather wrong context, there's probably quite a long list of Shakespeare quotes which could get you investigated. Or are you unfamiliar with Othello, Taming of the Shrew or The Merchant of Venice ?
I've never been too enthused with "let's kill all the lawyers".
'All' does seem mildly excessive.
Well thank ye, kind sir.
Well I do have a reputation for moderate pragmatism to maintain...
Better to have Davidson stay in Scotland again lead the Unionist cause at Holyrood in 2021 and try and find another contender to beat Corbyn or even keep May if the Tory vote continues to largely hold up, the aim being to get a Unionist majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and a Tory majority at the 2022 general election
How? A vote of no confidence stands alone; it can't be appended to any other vote.
Say she will tender her resignation to the Queen if she loses the vote.
Would that work? Couldn't the party just ditch her and get a new leader, without a GE?
HMQ would have 2 weeks or so to allow another government to form, but as the parliamentary arithmetic stands, there will almost certainly be a GE 6 weeks ahead, which is looking like December or January, not the best months, wasting time and will probably delay/defer/derail Brexit. To just ditch and replace her, would, while probably the best option, just cause panic in the leading runners breasties as no one wants the job until March 30th, when whoever gets the job will be able to say that they will "save the country" from the previous incumbents incompetence.
How? A vote of no confidence stands alone; it can't be appended to any other vote.
Say she will tender her resignation to the Queen if she loses the vote.
Would that work? Couldn't the party just ditch her and get a new leader, without a GE?
HMQ would have 2 weeks or so to allow another government to form, but as the parliamentary arithmetic stands, there will almost certainly be a GE 6 weeks ahead, which is looking like December or January, not the best months, wasting time and will probably delay/defer/derail Brexit. To just ditch and replace her, would, while probably the best option, just cause panic in the leading runners breasties as no one wants the job until March 30th, when whoever gets the job will be able to say that they will "save the country" from the previous incumbents incompetence.
I mean, to no confidence the government, there has to be a vote passed in parliament, right? So Tories not wanting a GE could vote that down, and then no confidence May
Vernon Unsworth alleges Musk falsely accused him on Twitter of being a paedophile. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court seeks more than $75,000 (£57,000) in damages and a court order preventing Musk from making further allegations.
He is going to need to smoke a fat one to forget how much that outburst could cost him...
I wonder if Musk's planned announcement for tomorrow morning is to try to get the media narrative away from this news (if he had known the timing in advance, that is).
Get the media talking about Musk the visionary genius, not Musk the asshat.
Vernon Unsworth alleges Musk falsely accused him on Twitter of being a paedophile. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court seeks more than $75,000 (£57,000) in damages and a court order preventing Musk from making further allegations.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Other than freedom of movement, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the social chapter, and so on - i.e. nearly all the reasons people voted to leave.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
I'm not holding my breath to see Barnier agree to ending freedom of movement etc - he is still implacably insisting on the indivisibility of the four freedoms so what evidence do we have that it really will end?
May has shown she will concede time and again as Barnier turns his ratchet to remove reason after reason behind exiting. By the end of the process I fully expect her to have conceded freedom of movement as well as financial contributions etc
That's a different point altogether. The fact still remains that what May is trying to get is a good compromise. Whether she will succeed or not remains to be seen, but it's bizarre to criticise her in advance for what hasn't happened and for what she isn't seeking. In any case, Barnier seems to be pushing in the other direction if anything - a looser arrangement than Chequers, but we shall see.
Still, I'm glad that you're reasonably happy with Chequers as she's proposed it.
My issue with May isn't Chequers as she's proposed it per se, it's a total lack of confidence in May to either achieve Chequers or not to concede more without getting anything time and again in return. Every step of the way so far May has shouted about her red lines, then Barnier has simply said no and she's gone away and come back conceding more without getting anything back from Barnier. I don't trust May.
I believe President Teddy Roosevelt summed up his international diplomacy with the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick". May seems to do the polar opposite with both. If she'd spoken softer at the start and been more willing to carry a stick when it mattered then we might be elsewhere now.
As for Chequers there are already issues there but I expect they'll be greatly magnified before the end of the process.
Those Whisky/Vodka and Cokes are about to get a little bit more... Interesting?
If Coke do go through with this, I can imagine it is only a matter of time until the likes of Kraft get in on this market. The edibles portion of the legal cannabis market is already extremely large.
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Actually that seems to be exactly what May is aiming for. To leave in name only.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Other than freedom of movement, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the social chapter, and so on - i.e. nearly all the reasons people voted to leave.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
I'm not holding my breath to see Barnier agree to ending freedom of movement etc - he is still implacably insisting on the indivisibility of the four freedoms so what evidence do we have that it really will end?
May has shown she will concede time and again as Barnier turns his ratchet to remove reason after reason behind exiting. By the end of the process I fully expect her to have conceded freedom of movement as well as financial contributions etc
That's a different point altogether. The fact still remains that what May is trying to get is a good compromise. Whether she will succeed or not remains to be seen, but it's bizarre to criticise her in advance for what hasn't happened and for what she isn't seeking. In any case, Barnier seems to be pushing in the other direction if anything - a looser arrangement than Chequers, but we shall see.
Still, I'm glad that you're reasonably happy with Chequers as she's proposed it.
My issue with May isn't Chequers as she's proposed it per se, it's a total lack of confidence in May to either achieve Chequers or not to concede more without getting anything time and again in return. Every step of the way so far May has shouted about her red lines, then Barnier has simply said no and she's gone away and come back conceding more without getting anything back from Barnier. I don't trust May.
I believe President Teddy Roosevelt summed up his international diplomacy with the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick". May seems to do the polar opposite with both. If she'd spoken softer at the start and been more willing to carry a stick when it mattered then we might be elsewhere now.
As for Chequers there are already issues there but I expect they'll be greatly magnified before the end of the process.
Theresa's hopeless.
What time's her latest desperate Brexit gambit on the telly?
Vernon Unsworth alleges Musk falsely accused him on Twitter of being a paedophile. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court seeks more than $75,000 (£57,000) in damages and a court order preventing Musk from making further allegations.
The US is not generally regarded as a plaintiff-friendly venue for defamation suits cos of the First Amendment. England can be much more generous, but may not have been an option because of lack of jurisdiction (though you'd have thought a tweet was published in every country in the world, pretty much).
Remarkable how LEAVE is holding up while the four horsemen and the apocalypse are being unleashed by the forces of Remain....
Perhaps an active threat to pension payments and other pensioner subsidies might influence behaviour. At present it’s just the employed who are under threat.
Vernon Unsworth alleges Musk falsely accused him on Twitter of being a paedophile. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court seeks more than $75,000 (£57,000) in damages and a court order preventing Musk from making further allegations.
From another US court case I'm loosely following, I think the $75k is a barrier that a claim has to reach before it can reach a certain court (I think Federal courts, under certain circumstances). In other words, if you claim for less than $75k, it probably won't be heard in Federal courts. Therefore 'seek more than $75k' just means 'yes, it's worth your court hearing it."
Definitely enjoying lurching between articles that make it sound like all we need to do is dot the Is and articles that make it sound like no deal is inevitable.
People are just tuning out all the "warnings" being given about Brexit (particularly a No Deal Brexit) - not entirely unreasonably, since some of the predictions from the referendum campaign that a Brexit vote itself, before the process started, would trigger an economic shock, turned out to be nonsense.
The people endlessly banging on about a "people's vote" would be better off keeping their powder dry for now, and then, if a No Deal or Rock-Hard Brexit does trigger some of the dire consequences that have been talked out, then campaign for an immediate Rejoin referendum, before any long-lasting damage to the economy is done. IMO, people (including I suspect quite a lot of people who voted Remain last time) are not going to believe the forecasts of food shortages and planes being grounded etcetc. until they see them happen with their own eyes
Comments
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/949332421530529793
IF there is a deal, it will be spun as a triumph for the Prime Minister who will be portrayed as Britannia winning over the Europeans even though the detail will show she has caved repeatedly and widely and the EU will be delighted not that the detail will be revealed to a euphoric public.
IF there is no deal, it will be all the fault of the Europeans, The Prime Minister will be lauded as the voice of sweet reason who will have been rebuffed by the "perfidious Europeans" and all the national stereotypes will come out for an airing and, as we've already seen on here, the personal slurs against individual Europeans will be dragged out as well.
No mea culpa, no admission of responsibility, no recognition of ill-preparation and no recognition of the depth and complexity of the task.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45545233
Caught in a vise, the silver-haired Australian wrote to the Russian Consulate in London.
“I, Julian Assange, hereby grant full authority to my friend, Israel Shamir, to both drop off and collect my passport, in order to get a visa,” said the letter , which was obtained exclusively by The Associated Press.
The Nov. 30, 2010, missive is part of a much larger trove of WikiLeaks emails, chat logs, financial records, secretly recorded footage and other documents leaked to the AP. The files provide both an intimate look at the radical transparency organization and an early hint of Assange’s budding relationship with Moscow.
https://apnews.com/af39586daf254cddb3d955453c45865d
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-unity-hopes-dashed-by-split-over-alternative-conference-11500579
You cannot leave and stay at the same time. It just isn't possible.
Lets never forget Boris told Airbus to FO, and other ultra leavers are happy for us to sacrifice our manufacturing , Scotland and Northern Ireland in their barmy Little Englander charge to disaster
Is not in the EU.
Ithankyou.
Governments a dead (wo)man walking.
If devolved politics is taken seriously there's no reason those who are in devolved roles can't be serious contenders.
...the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year’s supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine.
A vote of no confidence stands alone; it can't be appended to any other vote.
To lose all the benefits of full membership - voting rights etc - while maintaining all the responsibilities.
Ithankyoutoo.
The idea that Chequers is BINO is completely out with the fairies (as is the alternative criticism that's an ideologically-driven, reckless hard Brexit).
May has shown she will concede time and again as Barnier turns his ratchet to remove reason after reason behind exiting. By the end of the process I fully expect her to have conceded freedom of movement as well as financial contributions etc
Given she's led by perseverance, patience, and general mulishness so far, I can't see her switching to brinkmanship like that.
Still, I'm glad that you're reasonably happy with Chequers as she's proposed it.
Speaking to the BBC's PM programme, Ms Bailey said the party had been given the review in May and that she had had to fight to read it herself, saying Labour had kicked it "into the long grass" and not implemented the suggestions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45550003
One huge advantage of the Single Stochastic Vote is that it undercuts political dynasties.
As I suggested earlier, is a ‘Portillo Moment’ beckoning for Boris?
It's a fine example of a curious phenomenon: something which is both perfectly logical and utterly barmy in practice.
I'm sure that most of the people of Bootle would be outraged if they were represented by a Tory for one Parliament, eventually, but all those Tory voters there who stubbornly continued to vote would finally be rewarded - and similarly for Labour voters in rural Hampshire. It really is a magical idea.
One thing that bugged me at the end (well, before the various ends) of the last film was the collapse of the earth that swallowed all the orcs. Why couldn't an orc make a living as a mercenary, smith, sailor, etc?
Lots of fantasy and sci-fi has a fodder race (Nazis can fulfil that function too, the guys it's completely fine to hate and want dead). One thing I did with Sir Edric was give him a best friend who was also a man-eating slaver, just to see how it'd work. Inherent evil (rather than just law-breaking) is interesting to consider.
Anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound.
Ensuring that the voter is truly, and believed to be, randomly chosen might be a challenge.
SSV is even better than AV.
Although she is a Unionist I think she is also proud of being a Scot. I think she thinks she can make more of a difference here than in Westminster and she is probably right. That said, (despite being a strong remainer) she is my kind of Tory and I would very much welcome her getting into the big pond at some point.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/17/british-diver-vernon-unsworth-sues-elon-musk-over-pedo-claim?CMP=twt_gu
$75,000 seems modest - or is 'more than' key?
Get the media talking about Musk the visionary genius, not Musk the asshat.
Cynical, me?
The co-founder of Salesforce.com, Marc Benioff, and his wife are personally buying Time for $190m (£145.3m).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45543964
Maybe its why I'm not a billionaire, but if I was I wouldn't be buying these failing traditional magazines / newspapers.
I believe President Teddy Roosevelt summed up his international diplomacy with the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick". May seems to do the polar opposite with both. If she'd spoken softer at the start and been more willing to carry a stick when it mattered then we might be elsewhere now.
As for Chequers there are already issues there but I expect they'll be greatly magnified before the end of the process.
What time's her latest desperate Brexit gambit on the telly?
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1041753409752313856
Note: IANAL, not American, etc, etc.
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
Definitely enjoying lurching between articles that make it sound like all we need to do is dot the Is and articles that make it sound like no deal is inevitable.
The people endlessly banging on about a "people's vote" would be better off keeping their powder dry for now, and then, if a No Deal or Rock-Hard Brexit does trigger some of the dire consequences that have been talked out, then campaign for an immediate Rejoin referendum, before any long-lasting damage to the economy is done. IMO, people (including I suspect quite a lot of people who voted Remain last time) are not going to believe the forecasts of food shortages and planes being grounded etcetc. until they see them happen with their own eyes