Poll published 19th October: Kantar Public Opinion The Conservative party maintain their +5 lead in October’s voting intentions. Scores for each party remain largely unchanged. [Among likely voters: Conservatives 41% (+1), Labour 36% (+1), Lib Dems 10% (nc), SNP 4 % (nc), Green 4% (nc), UKIP 3% (-2%), PC 1% (+1), Other 2% (+1).]
Of the 7 published polls whose fieldwork took place in October, Labour have led in just one.
Following the three latest polls (which have the Tories leading by between 1% and 5%) the EMA has the Tories on 39.5% and Labour on 37.8%.
This results in: Con 309 seats Lab 262 seats LD 17 seats Grn 1 seat PC 3 seats NI 18 seats
Tories 17 short of an overall majority. Horribly hung!
In practice the Tories could benefit from Kippers voting Tory if no UKIP candidate. Labour could also benefit from more exposure and equal air time in an election campaign. Who knows? I think we can be confident there wouldn't be a majority Labour government but roughly equal chance of a minority Tory (with DUP) or minority Labour government (assuming LDs wouldn't give C&S to the Tories).
Changes from the last election:
Con -9 Lab no change LD +5 PC -1
Enough to make Corbyn PM propped up by minor parties
If the Conservatives are north of 310MPs it'll be a minority Government.
Anything less they'll more likely be out of office.
Lab+LD+SNP+Green+PC = 314 now, Tories + DUP =328.
Assuming the DUP hold all their seats, the Tories can only afford to lose a maximum of 7 seats to Labour or the LDs or the SNP if they want to be assured of keeping Corbyn out of No 10
Would the LDs put Corbyn into Downing Street? They'd have to positively vote in favour of it for it to happen. If they abstain the Tories + DUP could survive.
No, LDs would not. At most would permit a hamstrung minority government.
You don't think there are any circumstances where the LDs might consider supporting a government as being in the national interest? Since they will never form a government consisting of just themselves, that has to be part of the goal surely? And we know some LDs like Corbyn even if not all do.
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Corbyn has done very well out of Brexit so far - one of the very few politicians whose career it has helped. Three years ago he was a complete no-hoper, a political laughing stock destined to consign Labour to the dustbin of history, openly mocked by the Tory posh boys. Now he is widely believed - not least by the Tory posh boys - to be on the threshold of Downing Street.
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Corbyn has done very well out of Brexit so far - one of the very few politicians whose career it has helped. Three years ago he was a complete no-hoper, a political laughing stock destined to consign Labour to the dustbin of history, openly mocked by the Tory posh boys. Now he is widely believed - not least by the Tory posh boys - to be on the threshold of Downing Street.
Not by this conservative or the polls (mind you I should leave those to Hyufd) and I am not a posh tory as you say
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Corbyn has done very well out of Brexit so far - one of the very few politicians whose career it has helped. Three years ago he was a complete no-hoper, a political laughing stock destined to consign Labour to the dustbin of history, openly mocked by the Tory posh boys. Now he is widely believed - not least by the Tory posh boys - to be on the threshold of Downing Street.
And he has played Brexit relatively well too, if very cynically (much praised, if not lately, as 'masterly inactivity')
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Corbyn has done very well out of Brexit so far - one of the very few politicians whose career it has helped. Three years ago he was a complete no-hoper, a political laughing stock destined to consign Labour to the dustbin of history, openly mocked by the Tory posh boys. Now he is widely believed - not least by the Tory posh boys - to be on the threshold of Downing Street.
Not by this conservative or the polls (mind you I should leave those to Hyufd) and I am not a posh tory as you say
Are you "posh" (port out, starboard home) on your cruises though?
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
That would be silly, and I don't believe it will happen.
Labour is positioned to oppose whatever the government might come up with whilst being unable and unwilling to say anything at all, beyond vacuous platitudes, about what it would do instead.
Unsustainable in the long run, but if the government collapses or it all goes tits up, few will remember the vacuousness of the opposition, or hold them to task over it.
Corbyn has done very well out of Brexit so far - one of the very few politicians whose career it has helped. Three years ago he was a complete no-hoper, a political laughing stock destined to consign Labour to the dustbin of history, openly mocked by the Tory posh boys. Now he is widely believed - not least by the Tory posh boys - to be on the threshold of Downing Street.
Not by this conservative or the polls (mind you I should leave those to Hyufd) and I am not a posh tory as you say
Are you "posh" (port out, starboard home) on your cruises though?
Usually on starboard but it does depend on which side of the ship the most landfalls are on, so on some cruises port side is preferred.
Actually I make the decision on port or starboard from the direction of travel shown on the itinerary
So I am sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. Bit like my politics I suppose
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
Interesting to see in this interesting piece from The Lancet that in the top 10 countries in the longevity forecast for 2040, 5 out of 10 are in the EU, and 8/10 in Eurovision
Also a fascinating inverse relation with fertility rates. What is it about having children that finishes us off?
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
Yes. Science is not anti religious. The opposite actually.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
I'd say there are far more Muslim creationists than Christian creationists. That may well be a reflection on those religions distributions through the first/third world than anything inherent to the two religions themselves.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
God is quite capable of creating creatures that evolve physically, not just spiritually. I don't feel a contradiction.
First, many thanks to Alanbrooke for two superbly written well-argued and wholly thought-provoking threads so far. Both have broadened and deepened my knowledge of Northern (and indeed Southern) Irish politics, economics and culture.
As far as unification, in the absence of a military solution, the only two alternatives would be either for the rest of the UK to throw the Northern Irish Protestants under the bus or for the south to make the north an offer it can't refuse.
I'm reminded of two notions - first, "money talks, people walk" and second "people who are busy making money are less inclined to make trouble". The preservation, continuation and perpetuation of prosperity is or are the deliverables that will make this happen. If the Northern Irish can be guaranteed their current prosperity and a continuation of said in the new Ireland, they will be in.
My other thought is whether the answer is to have Northern Ireland as part of BOTH Ireland and the United Kingdom. Before everyone starts commenting about where they were the Sunday afternoon Stodge finally went mad I'm thinking about a largely autonomous entity with a large amount of self-government but supported by and answerable to both Dublin and London which would act as mutual guarantors for the settlement.
It's rough and poorly defined but perhaps worth a Sunday afternoon's thought or two.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
Yes - nicely done. (Probably not so nice for passengers of a nervous disposition though!)
We had a similar landing at Heathrow last October but on touch down the pilot aborted and took off, near vertical, great to feel the power of the engines at a time like that. Mind you our second attempt was still very scary, the passengers were very silent, then instantaneous applause broke out when we were safely down
Not quite. I'm not advocating a British Governor in Dublin or an Irish Governor in London but perhaps both powers could have a presence in Belfast or at Stormont.
The Irish threw out the Free State but as members of the EU they have agreed to cede some of their sovereignty to Brussels so this might be some small recompense.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
It seems to me that the official Labout position on the deal which May brings to the Commons will be to abstain, although some Labour MPs will vote in favour and a few against.
You may be correct but isn't that in effect voting for the deal and wouldn't the backlash for doing that be enormous. In some ways even worse than voting for it. At least that would be seen as a positive action, but abstaining would be seen as very cowardly I think. They had the opportunity to do something and did nothing. Just watched the carnage while sitting on their hands.
Announce it is too important to be whipped and will be a free vote
We had a similar landing at Heathrow last October but on touch down the pilot aborted and took off, near vertical, great to feel the power of the engines at a time like that. Mind you our second attempt was still very scary, the passengers were very silent, then instantaneous applause broke out when we were safely down
It seems very dramatic, but it's all very controlled. They know the maximum crosswind they can land at, and if it spikes they just throttle up and fly off.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
Not quite. I'm not advocating a British Governor in Dublin or an Irish Governor in London but perhaps both powers could have a presence in Belfast or at Stormont.
The Irish threw out the Free State but as members of the EU they have agreed to cede some of their sovereignty to Brussels so this might be some small recompense.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
I don't think many people have much of a problem with that, my impression of the argument (which is usually based around America) is many people on both sides believe in God but the ones who call themselves creationists question the theory of evolution and believe in something which they believe (wrongly perhaps) fits with the bible better.
The terms usage, at least in America seems to imply that being religious alone isn't enough to be a creationist but some kind of questioning of scientific theory on evolution (and perhaps even other things such as the Earth's age)
Edit: For example I assume the polling on creationists (in America at least) would lag badly behind those who are religious who would believe an all powerful being kicked the whole thing off presumably.
Perhaps the Proddies could move to East Sussex; they'd fit in well on Nov 5.
They could join their kinfolk in US Appalachia. Creationism, guns, and marching. What more could they want
more banjos and blue grass
Great comment. But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
What's your definition of creationism?
Some mix of: a denial of evolution; World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion); "intelligent design"; the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it; errr see page 94.
Although it is possible to believe in creationism as well as evolution. That is, an all-powerful being set the Laws of the Universe, created simple organic molecules, and then let things proceed.
Why bother.
Well indeed. Didn't say I agreed. Merely to say that one's belief in a creator does not automatically preclude evolution. Some scientists believe we may theoretically be some kind of giant simulation experiment.
If Javid really thinks no deal is a threat from us to them, his judgement isn't all that good.
It is, if their thinking is that they need not fear the negative consequences of no deal (which are acknowledged, just they would be more for us than them) because they believe there is no way we will do that because no sensible person would. Many unsensible things happen all the time, particularly when politics are involved. I would hope they are intelligent enough to recognise that whether we threaten no deal or not it is a real possibility, one they are publicly at least wanting to avoid, therefore talking up that option is not entirely stupid.
I don't believe it is a tactic which will work, but it is not quite as silly as it seems at first glance, since they already think we are harming ourselves, but won't harm them through no deal because we'd be hurt more, when the reality is no deal is a very very real possibility because a lot more people are in favour of risking no deal than will admit to being fully in favour of it, among both Tories and Labour. If no deal happens a lot of MPs will bleat about it, but they will have fully accepted the risk of no deal through unwillingness to pass other options.
We had a similar landing at Heathrow last October but on touch down the pilot aborted and took off, near vertical, great to feel the power of the engines at a time like that. Mind you our second attempt was still very scary, the passengers were very silent, then instantaneous applause broke out when we were safely down
It seems very dramatic, but it's all very controlled. They know the maximum crosswind they can land at, and if it spikes they just throttle up and fly off.
I have had a landing on Madeira take three attempts. I think the problem is not just the crosswinds, but also the combination with the mountains causing it to be unpredictably gusty. Two last minute aborted landings then a successful one heading outwards from Funchal to the sea was a bit hairy.
Mind you, judging from today, the Red Funnel to East Cowes has its own issues.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
That is true but on this occassion it was just relief from a very scary situation. My wife and I watched as the port wing tip suddenly dropped towards the tarmac only feet away and felt the immediate thrust of the engines. We have flown tens of thousands of miles including losing out starboard engine between Bangkok and Sydney, and virtually glancing the Andes on our approach to Ushuaia in southern Argentina, but this was the most worrying flying incident of all
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
Yep, a round of applause used to be part and parcel of a landing in any flight to or from Spain. Doesn’t seem to happen so much these days.
Early voting in Georgia is way up on what it was at this point in the last mid-terms in 2014. Most counties are up about 150%, and a few counties are up 400%. (This is according to the local TV election coverage).
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
Yep, a round of applause used to be part and parcel of a landing in any flight to or from Spain. Doesn’t seem to happen so much these days.
Early voting in Georgia is way up on what it was at this point in the last mid-terms in 2014. Most counties are up about 150%, and a few counties are up 400%. (This is according to the local TV election coverage).
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
Early voting in Georgia is way up on what it was at this point in the last mid-terms in 2014. Most counties are up about 150%, and a few counties are up 400%. (This is according to the local TV election coverage).
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
That is true but on this occassion it was just relief from a very scary situation. My wife and I watched as the port wing tip suddenly dropped towards the tarmac only feet away and felt the immediate thrust of the engines. We have flown tens of thousands of miles including losing out starboard engine between Bangkok and Sydney, and virtually glancing the Andes on our approach to Ushuaia in southern Argentina, but this was the most worrying flying incident of all
In the eighties, a friend of mine got a cheap flight to India with Aeroflot, with a stop in Kabul.
On the approach to Kabul, two MIGS came alongside and started dropping flares. He was informed by a fellow passenger that this was normal practice since the Mujahiddin had started firing heat seeking missiles...
Early voting in Georgia is way up on what it was at this point in the last mid-terms in 2014. Most counties are up about 150%, and a few counties are up 400%. (This is according to the local TV election coverage).
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
I'm voting tomorrow
Interesting. Any idea which counties have increased early voting the most? Democrat or Republican leaning parts?
I’ve always thought that an intelligent leader would also use no deal as threat to House of Commons. Tell them they will have a series of option out before them, if they get a majority for any including chequers then great, if not then they have already voted to allow referendum and to trigger article 50, the consequence of which is no deal, if no other deal is supported.
The May cycle lasts about 8-12 weeks. The time it takes for May to go from rock solid to imminently leaving and back again. We are currently approaching mid cycle lull.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
Yep, a round of applause used to be part and parcel of a landing in any flight to or from Spain. Doesn’t seem to happen so much these days.
Early voting in Georgia is way up on what it was at this point in the last mid-terms in 2014. Most counties are up about 150%, and a few counties are up 400%. (This is according to the local TV election coverage).
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
I'm voting tomorrow
for the House right? no Senate elections?
No US Senate, but state Senate, state secretary of state, and many more, including For Gwinnett County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor. The sample ballot is 4 pages long. It remains to be seen how many pages it will take on the computer screen.
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
What, again? If they're going to revolt, get on with it. I wonder if May should seize the initiative and sack those not willing to give unqualified support - better than waiting for a steady trickle of resignations.
I bet she learnt to do that flying sailplanes - standard practice in a cross-wind (though of course in a sailplane you don't have 100s of passengers and 1000s of litres of aviation fuel onboard to worry about
Perhaps a diversion would have been wise. Getting away with it is not the same as making the correct decision, as every doctor knows.
I think that's a bit harsh. I suspect it was a perfectly safe landing. IANE but believe there will be a recognised cross-wind limit and neither the pilot nor the airport would have allowed an attempt if that were exceeded.
After our aborted landing at Heathrow I asked the chief steward to pass on our thanks to the pilots for their skills in getting us downsafely and the steward said it was not only regular training for all pilots but actually is quite a common occurence
In my experience southern European passengers often clap the pilot after landing (having crossed themselves multiple times during the landing).
Yep, a round of applause used to be part and parcel of a landing in any flight to or from Spain. Doesn’t seem to happen so much these days.
Diminishing belief in divine providence?
Fewer nuns, I reckon.
I don't think nuns would clap. It's unseemly never mind the vow of silence.
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
And how could she do that.
Send the letter to the EU, just like the letter activating article 50, whether they accept it is another point but she screwed up royally instigating article 50 and then negotiating. The rest of the cabinet at the time were complicit in her incompetence and they doubled down having the 2017 GE. Fresh leadership could learn from May's mistakes and gain a better deal or not bother with Brexit at all.
I was an avid Top Gear fan, but after really really really trying during the last series, I'm done. LeBlanc was the one I liked, but the original trio they weren't. So I'm a fan of the Grand Tour. 3 series of that is probably enough. There are only so many ways 3 over aged kids can cock about with vehicles and either crash or blow up.
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
And how could she do that.
Send the letter to the EU, just like the letter activating article 50, whether they accept it is another point but she screwed up royally instigating article 50 and then negotiating. The rest of the cabinet at the time were complicit in her incompetence and they doubled down having the 2017 GE. Fresh leadership could learn from May's mistakes and gain a better deal or not bother with Brexit at all.
The A50 was served after HOC approved it. So you would need HOC approval to withdraw it
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
And how could she do that.
Send the letter to the EU, just like the letter activating article 50, whether they accept it is another point but she screwed up royally instigating article 50 and then negotiating. The rest of the cabinet at the time were complicit in her incompetence and they doubled down having the 2017 GE. Fresh leadership could learn from May's mistakes and gain a better deal or not bother with Brexit at all.
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
And how could she do that.
Send the letter to the EU, just like the letter activating article 50, whether they accept it is another point but she screwed up royally instigating article 50 and then negotiating. The rest of the cabinet at the time were complicit in her incompetence and they doubled down having the 2017 GE. Fresh leadership could learn from May's mistakes and gain a better deal or not bother with Brexit at all.
The A50 was served after HOC approved it. So you would need HOC approval to withdraw it
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
What, again? If they're going to revolt, get on with it. I wonder if May should seize the initiative and sack those not willing to give unqualified support - better than waiting for a steady trickle of resignations.
It's getting so bloody tiresome. This one involves people still in the Cabinet, but the fundamental issue remains the same in that May is saying she will or wants to do one thing and others keep threatening that she must back down, but if those involved are so opposed to her proposals then why keep her in place at all if she keeps making such awful proposals. There's no excuse for not acting if she is continually making such poor choices. Even if she backs down, why keep supporting someone who made so many bad calls that you have to keep threatening resignation to get her to do what you want.
Just go already, all of them. May cannot get something through either way without Labour help, which won't be forthcoming, so what are they even worried about in appearing to abandon her plans? Ok, no one wants to take on the job or is confident they will get the job, but that's not an excuse if her Brexit plans are apparently always so woeful.
So please, the Cabinet and others, just stop already.
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
Sounds like a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, but since legislative approval was required to issue A50, I would imagine whether the government now has the power to rescind it (or request rescinding or pausing it at least) would depend on what power the Act conferred upon the government. Since the text was so short and was explicitly about being able to notify the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw, I would not be entirely surprised if a strict interpretation would be that no other power was given, including a power to rescind said intention was given. It did say the PM 'may notify' of the intention in the Act, so I guess maybe you could interpret it since whether to do so was still in the discretion of the PM then suspending or withdrawing the intention would be too, but as a lay person that looks convoluted.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.
Comments
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/0?s=19
All projections are based on assumptions, but theseseem reasonable ones.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/21/mikhail-gorbachev-warns-donald-trump-against-pulling-missile/
Actually I make the decision on port or starboard from the direction of travel shown on the itinerary
So I am sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. Bit like my politics I suppose
There has to be a level of behaviour by all politicians that is acceptable and does not incite hatred or violence
But Foxy's remark did make me wonder whether anyone's made a map showing by region the percentage belief in creationism in, say, the US, or better, the World. God knows there's lots, and not just Christians.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/01/matt-cartoons-october-2018/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2018/10/20/...bristol.../1710917002/
https://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634
a denial of evolution;
World about 6000 years old (and not something like 4 billion);
"intelligent design";
the idea that there is no proof of evolution in spite of that fact that not one datum belies it;
errr see page 94.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1054095782960381952
https://youtu.be/YnKXPKHxPcI
Good night
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/21/theresa-may-faces-cabinet-revolt-extraordinary-last-minute-call/
The Irish threw out the Free State but as members of the EU they have agreed to cede some of their sovereignty to Brussels so this might be some small recompense.
https://capx.co/what-does-your-choice-of-breakfast-say-about-your-politics/
Nervous fliers probably shouldn't watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkAFUazoFbM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British–Irish_Council
The terms usage, at least in America seems to imply that being religious alone isn't enough to be a creationist but some kind of questioning of scientific theory on evolution (and perhaps even other things such as the Earth's age)
Edit: For example I assume the polling on creationists (in America at least) would lag badly behind those who are religious who would believe an all powerful being kicked the whole thing off presumably.
Best to roll the dice and see what happens...
I don't believe it is a tactic which will work, but it is not quite as silly as it seems at first glance, since they already think we are harming ourselves, but won't harm them through no deal because we'd be hurt more, when the reality is no deal is a very very real possibility because a lot more people are in favour of risking no deal than will admit to being fully in favour of it, among both Tories and Labour. If no deal happens a lot of MPs will bleat about it, but they will have fully accepted the risk of no deal through unwillingness to pass other options.
Mind you, judging from today, the Red Funnel to East Cowes has its own issues.
Talking heads are unified on what this means - we have no idea, we are in uncharted waters. The other thing they all agree on is that there's a lot of anger out there.
I'm voting tomorrow
Javid is no natural hard Brexiteer, which means he is positioning himself. If this were the real revolt, he wouldn't be leading it
But hard brexit is over and if ERG take over my party I will support a second referendum
On the approach to Kabul, two MIGS came alongside and started dropping flares. He was informed by a fellow passenger that this was normal practice since the Mujahiddin had started firing heat seeking missiles...
How will you vote, Tim? (Idle curiosity)
© Fats Waller
Just go already, all of them. May cannot get something through either way without Labour help, which won't be forthcoming, so what are they even worried about in appearing to abandon her plans? Ok, no one wants to take on the job or is confident they will get the job, but that's not an excuse if her Brexit plans are apparently always so woeful.
So please, the Cabinet and others, just stop already.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.