You might want to give President Trump a call and tell him he can't renegotiate NAFTA.
The US has not ratified the Vienna Convention. However, the original premise in the tweet is flawed in that the Convention, to which the UK is a ratified party, only applies to treaties between sovereign states, not between sovereign states and international organizations.
When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Sure, but has the balance of the economy, between profit and wages shifted meaningfully in the last 25 years or so.
In other words, has profit as a percent of GDP increased thanks to immigration reducing the share of labour, or has it remained constant (or declined). Without that information (and also for the rest of the world), you have no idea whether the rising wages will have an impact on the overall level of jobs in the economy.
I can safely say that the average wage for a Senior Developer in my neck of the woods hasn't changed from £45,000 back in 2007 to the £45,000 I offered someone last week.
In the same time the rate I was charged out at was £500 a day back in 2007 and I now charge £800 a day so yes wages haven't changed but prices (and so company profits) have
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. There are aggregate numbers for the whole economy available. I don't know what they say, but I can probably dig them out
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
That’s a given. But it’s back to the original point about food bank usage. What is it showing, if there’s no data showing to an increase in poverty or inequality over the period they’ve grown most quickly. Food is so cheap that it comprises of probably the smallest part of household income since we all stopped working on farms.
Demand for free food has no doubt always existed but been unsatisfied. As more Food Banks have been set up the latent demand has been met. This does not necessarily show that there is more poverty now than in previous decades when Food Banks did not exist - at least not under that branding.
You could equally argue that as there are no longer any Workhouses, as there were a hundred years ago, then all poverty has been conquered. It hasn't.
No not at all. But we keep redefining it as the whole measure is relative. Poverty is an iphone 6 when your mates have an iPhone X.
You might want to give President Trump a call and tell him he can't renegotiate NAFTA.
The US has not ratified the Vienna Convention. However, the original premise in the tweet is flawed in that the Convention, to which the UK is a ratified party, only applies to treaties between sovereign states, not between sovereign states and international organizations.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income
.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
That’s a given. But it’s back to the original point about food bank usage. What is it showing, if there’s no data showing to an increase in poverty or inequality over the period they’ve grown most quickly. Food is so cheap that it comprises of probably the smallest part of household income since we all stopped working on farms.
Demand for free food has no doubt always existed but been unsatisfied. As more Food Banks have been set up the latent demand has been met. This does not necessarily show that there is more poverty now than in previous decades when Food Banks did not exist - at least not under that branding.
You could equally argue that as there are no longer any Workhouses, as there were a hundred years ago, then all poverty has been conquered. It hasn't.
There are quite a few people in low or irregularly paid work for whom these places are necessary. People who are (rightly or wrongly) sanctioned by the Jobcentre also need them.
You might want to give President Trump a call and tell him he can't renegotiate NAFTA.
The US has not ratified the Vienna Convention. However, the original premise in the tweet is flawed in that the Convention, to which the UK is a ratified party, only applies to treaties between sovereign states, not between sovereign states and international organizations.
There is a common attitude to official statistics that wouldn't have been out of place in the pre-glasnost USSR. It's doubtless also possible to state that intelligence in a large part of the population hasn't fallen through the floor in the smartphone era.
There’s nothing wrong with been sceptical about statistics. But the ONS is fairly open about its methodology. The figures used for measuring household income are explained. The methodology hasn’t changed. The ONS do not have to bend to an almighty state to show tractor production is up.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
I saw a leaflet aimed at Asian voters. It may not have come from one of the official leave campaigns as I think it was by a Sikh group and was aimed at, well, Sikhs. But hard to imagine that the leave campaigns weren't at least aware that that kind of thing was going on. It would have been a very smart move for a remainer to have volunteered for the leave campaign and simply send the official literature intended for one group to the wrong one.
Is it just me or does it sit very uncomfortably that all the media are naming / posting photos of "Nick", the guy who made who claims of a VIP paedo ring?
Obviously his false claims have caused a lot of people a huge amount of stress and cost the taxpayer millions, but the guy is clearly seriously damaged and will now face the full force of the law for his actions.
But he won't stand trial for quite a few months now, I just wonder how sensible it is to broadcast to millions of people who exactly this guy is in the meantime.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
I saw a leaflet aimed at Asian voters. It may not have come from one of the official leave campaigns as I think it was by a Sikh group and was aimed at, well, Sikhs. But hard to imagine that the leave campaigns weren't at least aware that that kind of thing was going on. It would have been a very smart move for a remainer to have volunteered for the leave campaign and simply send the official literature intended for one group to the wrong one.
I am sure you are right but it makes no sense. The Vote Leave campaign which I helped in my area was much more focussed on stopping our contributions, regaining control of our laws and exiting the Single Market and Customs Union to make it easier to execute trade agreement outside the EU. The Leave.EU campaign, which was separate but still campaigned for Leave, was saying the exact opposite. Their campaign was all about immigration with the emphasis on reducing numbers.
Mr. G, since their first introduction during the boom under Blair, the number of food banks has only increased. Their numbers going up cannot be taken as evidence of anything as it's happened in boom, recession, return to growth and so on.
MD, That still does not explain the huge mushrooming of them over the last 5-10 years. I presume you cannot just walk in off the street and ask for a few bags of shopping , so there must be some criteria or referral to get the food and therefore the demand is there and there must be a reason for it, certainly not because people have more money and think "I will just nip down to the foodbank for some free scoff". People moving to Universal credit get no cash for up to 6 weeks , perhaps that might be a factor as I am sure most of these people don't have savings. It is still a scandal given the riches in UK and the government waste , that our only growing industry is foodbanks.
Brexit vote holding at 1.17 6.60. Sooo, does the government have something up their sleeve? They seem remarkably relaxed.
The calm that descends when the outcome (one part of it at least) is entirely certain. Even if it is terrible, you know it is coming and can appear sanguine about it simply due to not panicking. There's nothing to panic over..
As I recall there wan an Israeli politician whose voice some people did not like for some reason, and he delivered a PPB being dubbed over. Perhaps May should try that with Cox, just to see if the same thing said by someone else might work.
Cox has a speaking style that is quite a lot like micheal Foot imho.
I would vote for him as next PM
Welcome aboard!
(We may have to spring him from prison in Big Ben first though....)
Not at all.
The sad thing in this debate is that the important answers Cox has provided and are impressive is that mps are possesed with the advice he has given to the cabinet
He must have won some of the doubters over with his frank comments. He is a Brexiteer after all
Cox has a speaking style that is quite a lot like micheal Foot imho.
I would vote for him as next PM
Welcome aboard!
(We may have to spring him from prison in Big Ben first though....)
Not at all.
The sad thing in this debate is that the important answers Cox has provided and are impressive is that mps are possesed with the advice he has given to the cabinet
He must have won some of the doubters over with his frank comments. He is a Brexiteer after all
A Brexiteer who tempers their righteous fury at everything is no longer a Brexiteer. At best he is now a mere Brexiter.
Mr. G, since their first introduction during the boom under Blair, the number of food banks has only increased. Their numbers going up cannot be taken as evidence of anything as it's happened in boom, recession, return to growth and so on.
MD, That still does not explain the huge mushrooming of them over the last 5-10 years. I presume you cannot just walk in off the street and ask for a few bags of shopping , so there must be some criteria or referral to get the food and therefore the demand is there and there must be a reason for it, certainly not because people have more money and think "I will just nip down to the foodbank for some free scoff". People moving to Universal credit get no cash for up to 6 weeks , perhaps that might be a factor as I am sure most of these people don't have savings. It is still a scandal given the riches in UK and the government waste , that our only growing industry is foodbanks.
Its not that difficult to get a foodbank voucher, a social worker, doctor , teacher, CAB, Local Vicar, Health Visitor etc can get you a voucher as they are often registered voucher holders for foodbanks.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Sure, but has the balance of the economy, between profit and wages shifted meaningfully in the last 25 years or so.
In other words, has profit as a percent of GDP increased thanks to immigration reducing the share of labour, or has it remained constant (or declined). Without that information (and also for the rest of the world), you have no idea whether the rising wages will have an impact on the overall level of jobs in the economy.
I can safely say that the average wage for a Senior Developer in my neck of the woods hasn't changed from £45,000 back in 2007 to the £45,000 I offered someone last week.
In the same time the rate I was charged out at was £500 a day back in 2007 and I now charge £800 a day so yes wages haven't changed but prices (and so company profits) have
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. There are aggregate numbers for the whole economy available. I don't know what they say, but I can probably dig them out
An alternative explanation would be that the industry has moved to a greater reliance on freelancers. While full time staff are likely to value job security more (and thus demand fewer wage increases) freelancers have continued to up their rates and achieved pay increases that way.
The way to look at foodbanks is that they are another facility for agencies and professionals to use to provide a service for someone who has told them they are struggling. In some ways they are an easy fix which is why they have grown so much. A foodbank voucher is much easier to provide than say an emergency loan as all an agency has to do is write out a voucher. It also means that all an individual can get with the voucher is food. (Although a lot of food vouchers were sold on the black market in the early days, but procedures have improved to stop this)
A few days ago some on here were recommending the Plan B statement immediately the vote fell. What happens if TMay is ready to provide the statement but the VoNC had already been tabled? AIUI the VoNC gets precedence, doesn't it?
Can May formally provide the statement as part of the VoNC debate or would it work another way?
Mr. G, since their first introduction during the boom under Blair, the number of food banks has only increased. Their numbers going up cannot be taken as evidence of anything as it's happened in boom, recession, return to growth and so on.
MD, That still does not explain the huge mushrooming of them over the last 5-10 years. I presume you cannot just walk in off the street and ask for a few bags of shopping , so there must be some criteria or referral to get the food and therefore the demand is there and there must be a reason for it, certainly not because people have more money and think "I will just nip down to the foodbank for some free scoff". People moving to Universal credit get no cash for up to 6 weeks , perhaps that might be a factor as I am sure most of these people don't have savings. It is still a scandal given the riches in UK and the government waste , that our only growing industry is foodbanks.
The connection to UC is tenuous. The six week wait (which was abolished before it was properly rolled out) wouldn’t apply to anyone other than new applicants. You wait a week before you can claim, and then in some cases it was taking longer to process. Five weeks (though again interim payments are now made).
I think the growth in sanctions will have driven some of the usage. It’s a good thing that there are people charitable enough to support people who have excluded themselves from the state system. That of course doesn’t make sanctions in anyway wrong.
The issue is really that much of this is very complex and subtle changes are presented as some kind Dickensian dystopia of modern Britain. When it is not the truth.
Labour again and again fall into the trap of poverty porn. They can’t stop themselves. While they’re will be some injustice out there, the experience of people over the last eight years was more a frustration of things improving very slowly.
John Mcdonell spoke the other week of the wretched gutting of his constituency by the tories. Of course it won’t be true, his constituency being in London will be one of the most prosperous growing 100 odd constituencies of the last twenty years.
Why doesn't the government just publish already? Fair enough, they've fought hard to make the point this should not be done lightly, but really what is the point in resisting further?
Why doesn't the government just publish already? Fair enough, they've fought hard to make the point this should not be done lightly, but really what is the point in resisting further?
Why doesn't the government just publish already? Fair enough, they've fought hard to make the point this should not be done lightly, but really what is the point in resisting further?
stupidity and pig headedness
Is that what Labour and the Tories have changed their names to? I don't know which is which?
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
Yes and other governments have taken action...our government keeps saying its ok, nothing to worry about, we have reassurances, but now the spooks clearly aren't happy.
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
He's apparently a successful barrister, are you certain he has no substance? Or are you presuming that because he has style he must have no substance, or because he has a weak case to defend in this instance that he cannot have any substance generally?
He's apparently a successful barrister, are you certain he has no substance? Or are you presuming that because he has style he must have no substance, or because he has a weak case to defend in this instance that he cannot have any substance generally?
I think the more valid point is that he's widely untested across a wide range of policy areas.
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
He's apparently a successful barrister, are you certain he has no substance? Or are you presuming that because he has style he must have no substance, or because he has a weak case to defend in this instance that he cannot have any substance generally?
I think the more valid point is that he's widely untested across a wide range of policy areas.
Well indeed, we do not really know how much substance he may have. So I don't know on what basis one mocks him as having none (or that his style is greater than his substance), or if were one to think he has oodles of it. He's not well known at this level, how are we to know if it is style over substance or not? There's lots of leaping to conclusions about Cox, in both directions.
He's apparently a successful barrister, are you certain he has no substance? Or are you presuming that because he has style he must have no substance, or because he has a weak case to defend in this instance that he cannot have any substance generally?
I think the more valid point is that he's widely untested across a wide range of policy areas.
Well indeed, we do not really know how much substance he may have. So I don't know on what basis one mocks him as having none (or that his style is greater than his substance), or if were one to think he has oodles of it. He's not well known at this level, how are we to know if it is style over substance or not?
If you say so, but this was about hypothesizing about him as a potential leader - and as I noted if he had a weak case to defend in this instance that would not in itself mean he has limited substance; politicians have to sell positions with limited substance sometimes. We need more information before leaping to any conclusions on him as a prospective leader. Someone expecting a messiah is likely to be disappointed; someone asserting he has no substance purely on this basis may be just as misplaced.
He's apparently a successful barrister, are you certain he has no substance? Or are you presuming that because he has style he must have no substance, or because he has a weak case to defend in this instance that he cannot have any substance generally?
I think the more valid point is that he's widely untested across a wide range of policy areas.
Well indeed, we do not really know how much substance he may have. So I don't know on what basis one mocks him as having none (or that his style is greater than his substance), or if were one to think he has oodles of it. He's not well known at this level, how are we to know if it is style over substance or not?
He didn’t say anything.
Surely the greatest test is to defend a blank sheet of paper. Or more precisely, to deliver old news.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
If you say so, but this was about hypothesizing about him as a potential leader - and as I noted if he had a weak case to defend in this instance that would not in itself mean he has limited substance; politicians have to sell positions with limited substance sometimes. We need more information before leaping to any conclusions on him as a prospective leader. Someone expecting a messiah is likely to be disappointed; someone asserting he has no substance purely on this basis may be just as misplaced.
He is a better communicator than May and almost has as much gravitas as Richard Burton. But his argument was taken apart by a good Labour response.
The government lacks a communicator and someone with gravitas. If they could pair him with someone with a political and policy brain he could do well.
But he’s the sort of person a strong Labour leader would eat alive.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
Why doesn't the government just publish already? Fair enough, they've fought hard to make the point this should not be done lightly, but really what is the point in resisting further?
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Cox has a great voice and delivery style, but bollocks is still bollocks, whether it is delivered by Danny Dyer or Richard Burton.
His advice was honest, to the point, and detailed. It was not as you describe and actually was a path to leaving the EU that is good for business, people living and working here and aboad, and does provide congrol of immigration and our coastal waters at the end of the transistion
The idea we can walk away from 40 years of integration with the EU without paying anything and on WTO terms is for the birds. Of course remainers will trash everything they can to overturn the democratic vote
And that is the impasse. It is this deal for me or we will have no choice to remain with the all the division and anger that decision would heep down on us and the EU
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
This is another car crash coming down the pipeline and the government don't seem to be bothered about it....
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts
The prime minister is a remainer too, is she deliberately doing a bad job to sabotage Brexit?
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
Nope. There is not a ton of new information. There are just yet more scare stories.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts
The prime minister is a remainer too, is she deliberately doing a bad job to sabotage Brexit?
No she is just naturally bad at her job. It is a Brucie Bonus for Remain.
RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes. Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness? The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long. We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else. Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts
The prime minister is a remainer too, is she deliberately doing a bad job to sabotage Brexit?
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
You could make that argument 2 years after any general election too.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
If having more votes is more democratic then maybe we should make each General election the best of 3. After all by your measure that would be far more democratic.
Edit: or following the Remaniac play book the best of 5 if the best of 3 doesn't get the result you want... or 7... or 9.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
If having more votes is more democratic then maybe we should make each General election the best of 3. After all by your measure that would be far more democratic.
Australia has maximum terms of 3 years. By the time we get to the next Brexit referendum we'll have almost reached that length of time.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
You could make that argument 2 years after any general election too.
Personally, I favour annual parliaments, the only item from the Great Charter or the 1840's that is unfulfilled.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
Nope. There is not a ton of new information. There are just yet more scare stories.
Are you saying the 585 page withdrawal agreement is not new information and just scare stories?
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
If having more votes is more democratic then maybe we should make each General election the best of 3. After all by your measure that would be far more democratic.
Australia has maximum terms of 3 years. By the time we get to the next Brexit referendum we'll have almost reached that length of time.
The difference being they actually let the first result come into effect rather than waiting 3 years and then declaring it void before it has even been enacted.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments
The problem is that we're unwilling to admit to ourselves that democracy only picks the most popular outcome in the same way that the world cup picks the best football team. i.e. probabilistically. If the vote had been held a week earlier or later, or different people had been coming up with campaign ads, or different events had occurred, or any of a number of other factors, then the result could have been different.
We don't like to think about it that way, because it feels like it deligitimises democracy- not just for that referendum, but for every vote, every election. But it's true, and for that reason rerunning a referendum- especially one that was very close- is essentially giving one side another flip of the coin. I'd be furious if the same thing had happened for a vote which went the way I wanted, e.g. Sindyref. And I'm sure that if that DID happen, the people supporting the opposing position (the SNP, following the example) would be able to come up with some sales pitch about new information, lies during the campaign, blah blah, to justify it.
So that's one frame of mind. But here's another: if there really is a majority to stay in the EU now, isn't it perverse to the point of insanity to say we need to leave to respect the democratic will of the electorate of 2 and a half years ago? And another: given that leaving would always involve negotiating with the EU- who aren't bound by our referendums- did it ever make sense to have this setup, where we'd have a single with just one option encompassing so many different possibilities, many mutually contradictory, none of which we could predict?
I partially resolve it by saying that the original referendum was ill-conceived, which is largely Cameron's fault. But that doesn't really give us a way forward. After that, I lean towards a second referendum for a few reasons:
1. I want to Remain. Process is important, but so's the outcome. 2. We have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. We voted in the referendum, but we also voted in these MPs. 3. There remains the "ideal scenario" of public support moving significantly towards having a second referendum (say 60+% support, broadly reflected in polls). In that case I think it's very hard to argue that it's undemocratic to have one. Same goes if there's an early GE and the winning party has it in their manifesto, though I think that's unlikely.
But I feel like whatever our stance on Brexit, we should all be able to agree that neither the in-principle case for or against a second referendum is trivially right or wrong. The in-practice arguments (e.g. may not be able to remain on the same terms, may not be able to extend/withdraw A50) is a different conversation.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments
Have you learnt nothing from Jo Cox
That's low, even for you.
Why. You are talking of shot in the head
You used Jo Cox to make a political point. That is low.
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
Nope. There is not a ton of new information. There are just yet more scare stories.
Are you saying the 585 page withdrawal agreement is not new information and just scare stories?
The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people
Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
If having more votes is more democratic then maybe we should make each General election the best of 3. After all by your measure that would be far more democratic.
Australia has maximum terms of 3 years. By the time we get to the next Brexit referendum we'll have almost reached that length of time.
The difference being they actually let the first result come into effect rather than waiting 3 years and then declaring it void before it has even been enacted.
We've had two and half years of government fully focused on Brexit. Letting it go on into the transition period just to tick the box doesn't make much sense if you accept that reversal is an option the country would like to have.
Comments
No not at all. But we keep redefining it as the whole measure is relative. Poverty is an iphone 6 when your mates have an iPhone X.
There’s nothing wrong with been sceptical about statistics. But the ONS is fairly open about its methodology. The figures used for measuring household income are explained. The methodology hasn’t changed. The ONS do not have to bend to an almighty state to show tractor production is up.
Obviously his false claims have caused a lot of people a huge amount of stress and cost the taxpayer millions, but the guy is clearly seriously damaged and will now face the full force of the law for his actions.
But he won't stand trial for quite a few months now, I just wonder how sensible it is to broadcast to millions of people who exactly this guy is in the meantime.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
I saw a leaflet aimed at Asian voters. It may not have come from one of the official leave campaigns as I think it was by a Sikh group and was aimed at, well, Sikhs. But hard to imagine that the leave campaigns weren't at least aware that that kind of thing was going on. It would have been a very smart move for a remainer to have volunteered for the leave campaign and simply send the official literature intended for one group to the wrong one.
I am sure you are right but it makes no sense. The Vote Leave campaign which I helped in my area was much more focussed on stopping our contributions, regaining control of our laws and exiting the Single Market and Customs Union to make it easier to execute trade agreement outside the EU. The Leave.EU campaign, which was separate but still campaigned for Leave, was saying the exact opposite. Their campaign was all about immigration with the emphasis on reducing numbers.
(We may have to spring him from prison in Big Ben first though....)
The sad thing in this debate is that the important answers Cox has provided and are impressive is that mps are possesed with the advice he has given to the cabinet
He must have won some of the doubters over with his frank comments. He is a Brexiteer after all
Food banks came in before UC and increased for years prior to the introduction of UC.
Can May formally provide the statement as part of the VoNC debate or would it work another way?
Edit: legal, sorry.
I’ve lost
ittrackThe connection to UC is tenuous. The six week wait (which was abolished before it was properly rolled out) wouldn’t apply to anyone other than new applicants. You wait a week before you can claim, and then in some cases it was taking longer to process. Five weeks (though again interim payments are now made).
I think the growth in sanctions will have driven some of the usage. It’s a good thing that there are people charitable enough to support people who have excluded themselves from the state system. That of course doesn’t make sanctions in anyway wrong.
The issue is really that much of this is very complex and subtle changes are presented as some kind Dickensian dystopia of modern Britain. When it is not the truth.
Labour again and again fall into the trap of poverty porn. They can’t stop themselves. While they’re will be some injustice out there, the experience of people over the last eight years was more a frustration of things improving very slowly.
John Mcdonell spoke the other week of the wretched gutting of his constituency by the tories. Of course it won’t be true, his constituency being in London will be one of the most prosperous growing 100 odd constituencies of the last twenty years.
Why doesn't the government just publish already? Fair enough, they've fought hard to make the point this should not be done lightly, but really what is the point in resisting further?
The chief of MI6 has raised questions over Chinese technology companies being involved in the UK's communications infrastructure.
Australia and New Zealand have already blocked Chinese company Huawei from supplying equipment for their 5G mobile network, and other countries have raised concerns.
MI6 boss Alex Younger said Britain needs to decide how comfortable it is "with Chinese ownership of these technologies".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46431810
The government lacks a communicator and someone with gravitas. If they could pair him with someone with a political and policy brain he could do well.
But he’s the sort of person a strong Labour leader would eat alive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6454033/Riot-police-beat-lone-protester-shocking-video-Paris.html
Outrageous, selecting the best people for an oversubscribed course....never catch on.
By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
The idea we can walk away from 40 years of integration with the EU without paying anything and on WTO terms is for the birds. Of course remainers will trash everything they can to overturn the democratic vote
And that is the impasse. It is this deal for me or we will have no choice to remain with the all the division and anger that decision would heep down on us and the EU
"The shame of Naked Attraction" (£)
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-shame-of-naked-attraction/
The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.
It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
https://youtu.be/-W77154J0-w
Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.
A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
Edit: or following the Remaniac play book the best of 5 if the best of 3 doesn't get the result you want... or 7... or 9.
Have you learnt nothing from Jo Cox
We don't like to think about it that way, because it feels like it deligitimises democracy- not just for that referendum, but for every vote, every election. But it's true, and for that reason rerunning a referendum- especially one that was very close- is essentially giving one side another flip of the coin. I'd be furious if the same thing had happened for a vote which went the way I wanted, e.g. Sindyref. And I'm sure that if that DID happen, the people supporting the opposing position (the SNP, following the example) would be able to come up with some sales pitch about new information, lies during the campaign, blah blah, to justify it.
So that's one frame of mind. But here's another: if there really is a majority to stay in the EU now, isn't it perverse to the point of insanity to say we need to leave to respect the democratic will of the electorate of 2 and a half years ago? And another: given that leaving would always involve negotiating with the EU- who aren't bound by our referendums- did it ever make sense to have this setup, where we'd have a single with just one option encompassing so many different possibilities, many mutually contradictory, none of which we could predict?
I partially resolve it by saying that the original referendum was ill-conceived, which is largely Cameron's fault. But that doesn't really give us a way forward. After that, I lean towards a second referendum for a few reasons:
1. I want to Remain. Process is important, but so's the outcome.
2. We have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. We voted in the referendum, but we also voted in these MPs.
3. There remains the "ideal scenario" of public support moving significantly towards having a second referendum (say 60+% support, broadly reflected in polls). In that case I think it's very hard to argue that it's undemocratic to have one. Same goes if there's an early GE and the winning party has it in their manifesto, though I think that's unlikely.
But I feel like whatever our stance on Brexit, we should all be able to agree that neither the in-principle case for or against a second referendum is trivially right or wrong. The in-practice arguments (e.g. may not be able to remain on the same terms, may not be able to extend/withdraw A50) is a different conversation.