She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
He should have regretted it then as well.
He did privately.
Is one of the reasons he’s taking such a pragmatic approach to the deal.
Certainly doesn't help but surely the bigger problem is the number of graduates who now take non graduate jobs earning no more than their compatriots who didn't spend 3 years getting drunk in the Student Union on apparently "free" cash.
The problem arises because degrees that were worth something in the labour market when only a minority of people had them become worth much less when almost anyone who fancies a go can get one. Yet the financing system was designed on the premise that nothing had changed.
The problem is that most degrees are worth nothing, and never were. Even in the 20th Century, it was just a shortcut to identify brighter job candidates. It made no difference whether your new graduate trainee had a BA in English or History or Mathematics: the point was that simply having been to university meant they were probably better prospects than their peers who had left with O- or A-levels. Now that almost everyone (poetic licence!) has a degree, they do not even serve that function.
Or, 'Yes'?
Since being marked out as brighter is clearly worth something in the labour market.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
I would say repeatedly characterising people wanting to be independent of the EU as nasty racists is not helping the situation.
Works both ways, doesn't it? The way the Referendum was fought didn't help, though, to be fair. Or the way Mrs May ran the Home Office.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
I would say repeatedly characterising people wanting to be independent of the EU as nasty racists is not helping the situation.
Let us pretend that such people do not exist then. Everyone happy?
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
Indeed - the key change came at the end of the 1980s when Absolute Marking replaced Relative Marking.
Which was arguably fairer, as Absolute Marking provided a Relative reference between years. Otherwise you could get theoretically get an A in one year with a performance worse than one that got a C in the next year.
No, that it cannot get the agreement accepted is because the opposition are playing silly games.
Actually, it is the ERG, DUP and Conservatives who are playing silly buggers. The Opposition lacks the votes to block it.
The DUP have judged it on its merits. The Tories have a majority in favour of it...
Indeed, it is the Tories minority that is sufficient to ensure it never passes. If the Tory party toed the line and persuaded a few opposition MPs to vote for it then it would be game over.
It may be the best deal available, but it is still an awful deal to too many MPs. TBF, many Leavers do not like it either and many Conservative Associations seem to be pushing the message that No Deal is what they want.
That is somewhat untrue to the extent that, even if every Tory vote for it, as long as the DUP and all the other parties vote against it cannot pass.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
Indeed - the key change came at the end of the 1980s when Absolute Marking replaced Relative Marking.
I get the feeling papers incude more discussion now. Doing a science, I was once rebuked for writing an essay when I should have put down a list of facts. Question said 'write an essay, though. Still rankles.
Certainly doesn't help but surely the bigger problem is the number of graduates who now take non graduate jobs earning no more than their compatriots who didn't spend 3 years getting drunk in the Student Union on apparently "free" cash.
The problem arises because degrees that were worth something in the labour market when only a minority of people had them become worth much less when almost anyone who fancies a go can get one. Yet the financing system was designed on the premise that nothing had changed.
The problem is that most degrees are worth nothing, and never were. Even in the 20th Century, it was just a shortcut to identify brighter job candidates. It made no difference whether your new graduate trainee had a BA in English or History or Mathematics: the point was that simply having been to university meant they were probably better prospects than their peers who had left with O- or A-levels. Now that almost everyone (poetic licence!) has a degree, they do not even serve that function.
Or, 'Yes'?
Since being marked out as brighter is clearly worth something in the labour market.
Yes but you need one just so as not to be at a competitive disadvantage if you're in your early 20s now whereas back in the 70s or whatever the same candidates would have competed with just A-levels.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The reality is that we are spending far too much money sending far too many people to University with the majority doing little, if anything, to boost their earning power with their degrees. When we could pretend that this was their problem and their choice you could just about make a case for that. Now nasty old reality has intruded we have some tough choices to make. For our University sector winter is coming after a long self indulgent and extravagant summer.
It was another deeply flawed and illogical decision by Major. We don't need anywhere near 50% of our population with degrees. It simply devalues them. We need far greater emphasis on vocational skills and apprenticeships.
This is true. But the FE sector has been gutted while money has been thrown at Unis. There is no longer the infrastructure, nor number of qualified staff in vocational skills to put any emphasis on. Almost all are on zero hours contracts and the most experienced and able have drifted off to pastures new, which are better and more securely rewarded.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
Indeed - the key change came at the end of the 1980s when Absolute Marking replaced Relative Marking.
I get the feeling papers incude more discussion now. Doing a science, I was once rebuked for writing an essay when I should have put down a list of facts. Question said 'write an essay, though. Still rankles.
I was still shocked to find that my daughter's 4th Year (Year 10?) chemistry curriculum included a question about protesting against a limestone quarry.
No, that it cannot get the agreement accepted is because the opposition are playing silly games.
Actually, it is the ERG, DUP and Conservatives who are playing silly buggers. The Opposition lacks the votes to block it.
The DUP have judged it on its merits. The Tories have a majority in favour of it...
Indeed, it is the Tories minority that is sufficient to ensure it never passes. If the Tory party toed the line and persuaded a few opposition MPs to vote for it then it would be game over.
It may be the best deal available, but it is still an awful deal to too many MPs. TBF, many Leavers do not like it either and many Conservative Associations seem to be pushing the message that No Deal is what they want.
That is somewhat untrue to the extent that, even if every Tory vote for it, as long as the DUP and all the other parties vote against it cannot pass.
I am sure that the few votes needed could be hovered up somehow, but that is not were we are.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
She is holding the nation to ransom, blocking any other thought or option and leaving only her rock or a harder place. It's pretty disgraceful.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
There were idiots throwing rocks through the windows of Eastern European food markets in shire towns back in the early 2000s, long before Brexit was ever even thought of as a serious concept. There will always be idiots and they don't really need legitimising to be f**kwits
There is no point to any parliamentary debate at this stage. MPs have already made up their mind to ignore the reality of the situation.
There can be no renegotiation along the lines that Corbyn wants - even if he were competent enough to actually carry out any negotiation given that he doesn't actually have any clue as to what he wants. You can't leave the Single Market and then expect to retain all the same benefits.
Hardliners on both sides are refusing to accept the reality that compromise is essential in any negotiation.
Very, very few actively want No Deal - and there is no prospect of a different deal. Indeed if the EU were willing to open things up again with a new government, the current deal would be the absolute best that could be achieved. Anything that might emerge would undoubtedly be worse than what is on offer now.
Parliament is posturing, posing and pontificating. It is not a constructive body at the moment. It thinks it is more important than it is. Parliament cannot negotiate with the EU or anyone else. It cannot set the terms for negotiations. It is trying to assume powers that it has never had and was never intended to have.
It is Parliament that is creating a constitutional crisis. All talk of debate is bogus. Debate achieves nothing with the current state of mind from too many MPs. Debate only works when people listen and change their views. Greening, Benn, Cooper, Corbyn et al aren't willing to listen. So what are they actually after?
How many parliamentary debates can you point to that have actually changed the views of a significant number of MPs? I can't think of any. Parliamentary debates consist of MPs stating predetermined positions which have been formed in debates outside the chamber, within party structures and in discussions with campaign groups and policy advisers. One of May's many failings is her failure to keep her own MPs on board through her high handed remoteness and inability to engage and persuade them through personal discussion.
Mr. NorthWales, if May's deal fails, would you prefer no deal, revocation of Article 50 by the Commons, or a referendum of some variety?
Clean A50 revoke Referendum
There is no justification for a revocation prior to a referendum, that's just defaulting to remain when the outcome might be for leave and there is no need to reinvoke. An extension would be justified.
There is, as unless we revoke prior to March 29th we may not remain within the EU the way we do at the moment.
Granted it's not a great reason, but it's a reason for revoking prior to a referendum rather than afterwards..
Unless they give us an extension to hold a referendum.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
She is holding the nation to ransom, blocking any other thought or option and leaving only her rock or a harder place. It's pretty disgraceful.
You're being absurd. Parliament is completely divided, the PM is entitled to push what she believes to be the best option and it not obliged to push those she does not. Parliament is not blocked, it has the power to bring her down, that they have not done so yet does not mean they are blocked.
Her strategy is ineffective and I think it is reckless, but it is not disgraceful because they have options to get around it, they are just choosing not to exercise them. Talk of the nation being held to ransom is one of the more preposterous things that has popped up in the last couple of weeks, but given there is no clear majority supported outcome they are all holding us to ransome or none are.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
One advantage of May doing all these chats bilaterally, rather than via EUCO channels, is that none of this stuff has to be minuted, avoiding the EU's insufferable tendency to document everything.
After all, if the EU weren't so assiduously transparent, we might never have known quite how brutally May got treated in Brussels.
But these discussions are happening intergovernmentally, leader to leader, not by formal diplomatic channels. So we don't know what sweet nothings Macron and Merkel and Varadkar are whispering in May's ear.
However, it does seem that May's desire to bounce Tusk into calling yet another emergency EUCO summit in January looks like a very slim hope after the vicious Salzburging she took last week. Tusk reiterated today that he has no further mandate to call an EUCO summit to discuss an issue that the leaders have made very clear that, as far as they are concerned, is finished.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
When did you do yours? I did mine late 50's. Then they were really hard!
1985. Still hard then! Regardless of the content, we both did them when grades were awarded to a fixed percentage of candidates, so you were competing against the other candidates as much as the paper. Once they adopted a no limits approach to how many As could be awarded, the whole system became devalued - hence the need to introduce an A* grade.
Indeed - the key change came at the end of the 1980s when Absolute Marking replaced Relative Marking.
I get the feeling papers incude more discussion now. Doing a science, I was once rebuked for writing an essay when I should have put down a list of facts. Question said 'write an essay, though. Still rankles.
I was still shocked to find that my daughter's 4th Year (Year 10?) chemistry curriculum included a question about protesting against a limestone quarry.
Did you ever find out why? There's a connection but to my mind somewhat tenuous.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
There were idiots throwing rocks through the windows of Eastern European food markets in shire towns back in the early 2000s, long before Brexit was ever even thought of as a serious concept. There will always be idiots and they don't really need legitimising to be f**kwits
But it has become a lot worse since 2016 that's the point I'm making.
No point arguing with you, I pointed out to you over the last few years that UKIP were legitimising bigotry and racism and you denied it, and look at them now, the political wing of Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
I would say repeatedly characterising people wanting to be independent of the EU as nasty racists is not helping the situation.
OK, we all agree to cut the word "nasty", if that might help
Same old same old MPs getting called. A causal observer would think there were only about 25 MPs.....
Twas ever thus I imagine, we just don't normally pay this much attention. So many just content to sit there silently. I suppose at least nowadays they can play on their phones to pass the time.
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
She is holding the nation to ransom, blocking any other thought or option and leaving only her rock or a harder place. It's pretty disgraceful.
Why disgraceful? More to the point is that the Labour party, LibDems, SNP and the ERG group are holding the nation to ransom, by refusing to back the implementation of the result of the referendum and of the Article 50 invocation which all of them (except the SNP IIRC) voted for.
There is no point to any parliamentary debate at this stage. MPs have already made up their mind to ignore the reality of the situation.
There can be no renegotiation along the lines that Corbyn wants - even if he were competent enough to actually carry out any negotiation given that he doesn't actually have any clue as to what he wants. You can't leave the Single Market and then expect to retain all the same benefits.
Hardliners on both sides are refusing to accept the reality that compromise is essential in any negotiation.
Parliament is posturing, posing and pontificating. It is not a constructive body at the moment. It thinks it is more important than it is. Parliament cannot negotiate with the EU or anyone else. It cannot set the terms for negotiations. It is trying to assume powers that it has never had and was never intended to have.
It is Parliament that is creating a constitutional crisis. All talk of debate is bogus. Debate achieves nothing with the current state of mind from too many MPs. Debate only works when people listen and change their views. Greening, Benn, Cooper, Corbyn et al aren't willing to listen. So what are they actually after?
How many parliamentary debates can you point to that have actually changed the views of a significant number of MPs? I can't think of any. Parliamentary debates consist of MPs stating predetermined positions which have been formed in debates outside the chamber, within party structures and in discussions with campaign groups and policy advisers. One of May's many failings is her failure to keep her own MPs on board through her high handed remoteness and inability to engage and persuade them through personal discussion.
I think that's too kind.
May has spent 2 years telling us that we have to back her in the national interest. That whatever she says is in the national interest.
No consultations. no listening to oppostion figures. No cross-party working / engagement groups. Brexit means Brexit and you're either for me or against me. Lost majority? NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Now she's saying that she has a deal and that backing her is the only way to be sure of preventing no deal. is it any surprise that she's got every single opposition MP except Stephen Lloyd telling her to sod off?
Every time I have sympathy with her - and I do, on a personal level - I'm reminded of her total arrogance and high-handedness. I really don't feel history will judge her kindly - easily the worst PM I can remember.
She can only really surprise me on the upside now!
Mr. NorthWales, still not as bad as 'learn the lessons', particularly in situations that were obviously stupid beforehand.
"In retrospect, putting the tiger enclosure next door to the school was perhaps an error of judgement. We shall learn the lessons of this so that never again are fifteen tigers let loose by teenage delinquents."
Edited extra bit: was hunting for a word and used the wrong one in error, hence change.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
There were idiots throwing rocks through the windows of Eastern European food markets in shire towns back in the early 2000s, long before Brexit was ever even thought of as a serious concept. There will always be idiots and they don't really need legitimising to be f**kwits
But it has become a lot worse since 2016 that's the point I'm making.
No point arguing with you, I pointed out to you over the last few years that UKIP were legitimising bigotry and racism and you denied it, and look at them now, the political wing of Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
UKIP has shifted significantly over the past months. Batten is the one who has really taken them so decisively in this direction. His link up with Robinson not something that I can imagine having happened under Farage (for all his faults)
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
That occurred to me also recently. It is a bit like someone who recently said, "when did you ever hear a ref in a football or rugby match say, "actually, you know what, you make a good point...I'll reverse my decision" "!
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
The purpose of Parliamentary debate isn't to change minds. The purpose is to make sure that every MP's opinion is extensively documented and recorded in Hansard.
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The reality is that we are spending far too much money sending far too many people to University with the majority doing little, if anything, to boost their earning power with their degrees. When we could pretend that this was their problem and their choice you could just about make a case for that. Now nasty old reality has intruded we have some tough choices to make. For our University sector winter is coming after a long self indulgent and extravagant summer.
It was another deeply flawed and illogical decision by Major. We don't need anywhere near 50% of our population with degrees. It simply devalues them. We need far greater emphasis on vocational skills and apprenticeships.
Back in my day only 5% went to University. That's why the other 95% paying the fees for the 5% exceptional students could be justified.
Once you have 40% to 50% going to University it's harder to justify the other 50% to 60% paying their fees.
Why disgraceful? More to the point is that the Labour party, LibDems, SNP and the ERG group are holding the nation to ransom, by refusing to back the implementation of the result of the referendum and of the Article 50 invocation which all of them (except the SNP IIRC) voted for.
It's amazing that you still think that Parliament should give in to such transparent and ham-fisted blackmail.
Mrs May can point a gun at her head and shout I'LL SHOOT I MEAN IT DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!!! as many times as she likes. It's not going to change anything.
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
By-the-way, it is a part time job, otherwise how could someone be the MP for, say, Snodgrass on Sea and Foreign Secretary
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
The purpose of Parliamentary debate isn't to change minds. The purpose is to make sure that every MP's opinion is extensively documented and recorded in Hansard.
And sent as a press release to the Bogshire Gazette.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
There were idiots throwing rocks through the windows of Eastern European food markets in shire towns back in the early 2000s, long before Brexit was ever even thought of as a serious concept. There will always be idiots and they don't really need legitimising to be f**kwits
But it has become a lot worse since 2016 that's the point I'm making.
No point arguing with you, I pointed out to you over the last few years that UKIP were legitimising bigotry and racism and you denied it, and look at them now, the political wing of Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
UKIP has shifted significantly over the past months. Batten is the one who has really taken them so decisively in this direction. His link up with Robinson not something that I can imagine having happened under Farage (for all his faults)
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
The purpose of Parliamentary debate isn't to change minds. The purpose is to make sure that every MP's opinion is extensively documented and recorded in Hansard.
Not technically the only purpose - one reason they are not permitted to just read out speeches (outside maiden speeches) and while even recent committees looking at reforming procedures decided not to allow wholesale reading of notes, is because MP's comments should to some degree actually contribute to and be impacted by the debate and so reflect and reference the comments made by other members. Additionally since far from every MP speaks in debate the purpose of debate is clearly not to record their views and reasoning, since most of those present will have not given any indication of what they think.
But obviously in practice the chances of an MP being swayed by the comments in the chamber are vanishingly small, and since most of the time you're under a party whip what even the point of defending the way you vote.
As per Erskine May: In principle, a member is not permitted to read a speech, but may make reference to notes. Similarly, a member may read extracts from documents but such extract and quotations should be reasonably short. The purpose of this rule is to maintain the cut and thrust of debate, which depends upon successive speakers meeting in their speeches to some extent the arguments of earlier speeches; debate is more than a series of set speeches prepared beforehand without reference to each other.
Why disgraceful? More to the point is that the Labour party, LibDems, SNP and the ERG group are holding the nation to ransom, by refusing to back the implementation of the result of the referendum and of the Article 50 invocation which all of them (except the SNP IIRC) voted for.
It's amazing that you still think that Parliament should give in to such transparent and ham-fisted blackmail.
Mrs May can point a gun at her head and shout I'LL SHOOT I MEAN IT DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!!! as many times as she likes. It's not going to change anything.
I don't necessarily. All I'm saying is that it's not disgraceful of the PM to try to find the only compromise which might actually work (or might actually have worked).
"Did you ever find out why? There's a connection but to my mind somewhat tenuous."
Lung illnesses are caused by respirable crystalline silica (RCS) which has a very low maximum exposure limit. Limestone by comparison is relatively harmless. Confusing the two should ensure a fail in the examination - even if the general public often do.
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
That occurred to me also recently. It is a bit like someone who recently said, "when did you ever hear a ref in a football or rugby match say, "actually, you know what, you make a good point...I'll reverse my decision" "!
I've asked this question before but I'll try again. What is the point of debates in Parliament? Has any serious decision ever depended on the level of debate. You have attorneys arguing their point ad nauseum, but minds are never changed.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
That occurred to me also recently. It is a bit like someone who recently said, "when did you ever hear a ref in a football or rugby match say, "actually, you know what, you make a good point...I'll reverse my decision" "!
Will add £12bn to the budget deficit, apparently, which makes the extra expenditure that Hammond announced in the budget seem somewhat brave. It would also be fair to say that any "war chest" designed to protect the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit is now somewhat depleted.
Personally, I think that the current mess makes the argument for a much simpler graduate tax almost unanswerable. If 45% of student loans are never going to be repaid what is the point in such inefficiency?
I'm 2.7k away from the end of my loan. My other half never took one (She went to uni 2005-9 iirc). There best bloody not be a retrospective grad tax for us.
That is going to be a problem. It was a shambolic idea from the start and imposing a fairly harsh "commercial" interest rate on the debt seriously aggravated the problem.
Another issue is that a grad tax needs to have a lifetime cap (otherwise those who reasonably foresee being high earners will take out private provision), but such a cap may prove difficult to sustain politically.
I actually think we've ended up with a fairly reasonable system, albeit one accompanied by a huge quantity of disingenuous politicised talk about debt, and also some heroic national accounting.
The reality is that we are spending far too much money sending far too many people to University with the majority doing little, if anything, to boost their earning power with their degrees. When we could pretend that this was their problem and their choice you could just about make a case for that. Now nasty old reality has intruded we have some tough choices to make. For our University sector winter is coming after a long self indulgent and extravagant summer.
It was another deeply flawed and illogical decision by Major. We don't need anywhere near 50% of our population with degrees. It simply devalues them. We need far greater emphasis on vocational skills and apprenticeships.
Agreed but the bizarre inflation of the tertiary sector to its current levels of opulence occurred after Major to be fair to him. If we had had today's ruling about 2000 we might have taken a different path.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
She is holding the nation to ransom, blocking any other thought or option and leaving only her rock or a harder place. It's pretty disgraceful.
Why disgraceful? More to the point is that the Labour party, LibDems, SNP and the ERG group are holding the nation to ransom, by refusing to back the implementation of the result of the referendum and of the Article 50 invocation which all of them (except the SNP IIRC) voted for.
And the LibDems (mostly) and Green
The government acts and the opposition reacts. Acting attracts the blame.
I am the very model of a Brexiteer-General, I've less information than a vegetable, animal, or mineral, I love the kings of England, and I fight the fights historical From Amsterdam to Maastricht, in order categorical; I'm ill acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, For me all votes of confidence are problematical, About the evils of Europe I'm teeming with a lot o' news, (bothered for a rhyme) With many dismal facts about those awful remainers' views.
Dreadful stuff, I hope they can face punishment of some kind, but he still thinks Brexit created a situation rather than was an outlet for it, good and bad. Things don't get conjured out of the aether.
Brexit has legitimised it.
I’ve have had my Englishness/Britishness questioned a lot since June 2016.
If you don’t look Anglo Saxon or have an Anglo Saxon name then it isn’t pleasant.
Gove regrets the nasty side of the Leave campaign now.
There were idiots throwing rocks through the windows of Eastern European food markets in shire towns back in the early 2000s, long before Brexit was ever even thought of as a serious concept. There will always be idiots and they don't really need legitimising to be f**kwits
But it has become a lot worse since 2016 that's the point I'm making.
No point arguing with you, I pointed out to you over the last few years that UKIP were legitimising bigotry and racism and you denied it, and look at them now, the political wing of Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
UKIP has shifted significantly over the past months. Batten is the one who has really taken them so decisively in this direction. His link up with Robinson not something that I can imagine having happened under Farage (for all his faults)
Must be horrible as a UKIPper, to see your party of Good Racists being torn apart from the inside by an influx of Bad Racists.
To be fair Farage is also worried about the Jews, not just Muslims.
Nigel Farage: 'Jewish lobby' has disproportionate power in the US
'Farage’s clumsy use of the terms Israel and Jewish lobby interchangeably and his reference to their ‘power’ has crossed the line into well-known antisemitic tropes,' says Board of Deputies
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
I got the feeling from a couple of things I've read that enough of the Tory objectors could be brought on board with a guarantee that the "backstop" would not be permanent. This ought to be trivial for the EU to guarantee since under TFEU the withdrawal agreement cannot be the permanent end-state.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
I got the feeling from a couple of things I've read that enough of the Tory objectors could be brought on board with a guarantee that the "backstop" would not be permanent. This ought to be trivial for the EU to guarantee since under TFEU the withdrawal agreement cannot be the permanent end-state.
The nonsense of the situation is that (despite what some paranoid leavers appear to believe) the EU doesn't want it to be permanent, either; its way too favourable a position. But to function properly as a backstop the exit route needs to be resolution of the underlying problem, not just the passage of time or dissatisfaction of one of the parties.
"Did you ever find out why? There's a connection but to my mind somewhat tenuous."
Lung illnesses are caused by respirable crystalline silica (RCS) which has a very low maximum exposure limit. Limestone by comparison is relatively harmless. Confusing the two should ensure a fail in the examination - even if the general public often do.
"Did you ever find out why? There's a connection but to my mind somewhat tenuous."
Lung illnesses are caused by respirable crystalline silica (RCS) which has a very low maximum exposure limit. Limestone by comparison is relatively harmless. Confusing the two should ensure a fail in the examination - even if the general public often do.
Hmm. This was in a IVth Form chemistry course and the issue was a bout protesting against a limestone quarry, as raised by Mr Tyndall.
Certainly doesn't help but surely the bigger problem is the number of graduates who now take non graduate jobs earning no more than their compatriots who didn't spend 3 years getting drunk in the Student Union on apparently "free" cash.
The problem arises because degrees that were worth something in the labour market when only a minority of people had them become worth much less when almost anyone who fancies a go can get one. Yet the financing system was designed on the premise that nothing had changed.
The problem is that most degrees are worth nothing, and never were. Even in the 20th Century, it was just a shortcut to identify brighter job candidates. It made no difference whether your new graduate trainee had a BA in English or History or Mathematics: the point was that simply having been to university meant they were probably better prospects than their peers who had left with O- or A-levels. Now that almost everyone (poetic licence!) has a degree, they do not even serve that function.
Or, 'Yes'?
Since being marked out as brighter is clearly worth something in the labour market.
Yes, that was the old function, when it was rare. Having been to university marked you out, so far as employers were concerned, as being better than those who had not. But for most jobs, it did not matter what you had done there. The degree itself was worthless, it was simply having spent three years at university that landed the job.
She's shamelessly running down the clock, isn't she.
She persistently refers to the referendum result as if she wants to blame the stupid voters for this mess, rather than the Government.
It's Labour and the other opposition parties who are running down the clock, along with their friends in the ERG. The PM's trying to get MPs to agree to stop running down the clock, admittedly without much sign of success so far at least.
Labour has nothing to be proud of in this connection, Richard, but it is not the Government.
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
No, I think she believes she'll get something out of the EU. I'd accuse her of wishful thinking rather than shamelessness - I suspect she will get something, but not enough to make any difference.
I got the feeling from a couple of things I've read that enough of the Tory objectors could be brought on board with a guarantee that the "backstop" would not be permanent. This ought to be trivial for the EU to guarantee since under TFEU the withdrawal agreement cannot be the permanent end-state.
Ought to be trivial perhaps, but this is where the EU's own 'all or nothing' approach has proven riskier than I imagine they predicted.
Must be horrible as a UKIPper, to see your party of Good Racists being torn apart from the inside by an influx of Bad Racists.
To be fair Farage is also worried about the Jews, not just Muslims.
Nigel Farage: 'Jewish lobby' has disproportionate power in the US
'Farage’s clumsy use of the terms Israel and Jewish lobby interchangeably and his reference to their ‘power’ has crossed the line into well-known antisemitic tropes,' says Board of Deputies
JRM just complimented TM on her success last week and pledged his support to her !!!!
Perhaps JRM has sniffed the wind, he's worked out that if the vote goes down predominantly remain MPs then the pivot to leaving without a deal is mentally easier for the PM than if not
JRM just complimented TM on her success last week and pledged his support to her !!!!
I assume as leader and not on the deal though? Perhaps someone realised their temper tantrum and inventing constitutional norms to justify that tantrum was not a good look last week.
JRM just complimented TM on her success last week and pledged his support to her !!!!
I assume as leader and not on the deal though? Perhaps someone realised their temper tantrum and inventing constitutional norms to justify that tantrum was not a good look last week.
It did strike me that he was trying to right a wrong
Of course I could have mentioned the time Nigel Farage called Muslims fifth columnists.
But yes anti Islamic behaviour from UKIP under Farage is unimaginable.
Accusations of anyone being a fifth column comes pretty rich from a man that has helped to promote the foreign policy agenda of Vladimir Putin and is strangely uncritical of the Russian despot.
Mr. NorthWales, still not as bad as 'learn the lessons', particularly in situations that were obviously stupid beforehand.
"In retrospect, putting the tiger enclosure next door to the school was perhaps an error of judgement. We shall learn the lessons of this so that never again are fifteen tigers let loose by teenage delinquents."
Edited extra bit: was hunting for a word and used the wrong one in error, hence change.
My current least favourite political word is "pivot".
"Hmm. This was in a IVth Form chemistry course and the issue was a bout protesting against a limestone quarry, as raised by Mr Tyndall."
There's little point protesting about a limestone quarry. Limestone dust is virtually neither respirable or crystalline. Nothing is harmless (even water are toxic in excess) but there's a world of difference between RCS and limestone dust. That's before we get into the specifics of the dilution effect.
PS I did get an A in Chemistry A level in the sixties.
I’m so glad my student fees were paid by the taxpayers.
Mind you the price for that was doing my A Levels when A Levels were hard.
Fake News. Harder than now yes, but not properly hard like when I did mine!
1997.
That's when they were hard before Blair ruined it all.
But nothing like as hard as when Baker ruined them all in the late 80s. They were much more demanding when Jeremy managed his 2 Es in the late 60s!
As an experiment back in 2005 I did a A Level papers in Maths and Physics from 1978 and I still got an A.
Of course some pupils got A grades under the earlier system , but they were much rarer. More important than any change in course content , was the system of assessment Until Baker changed the system in the late 80s , 30% of ALevel entrants failed to achieve the minimum E grade pass. Today a mere 2.5% fail to do so.
Comments
Ian Blackwood was absolutely spot on when he said the vote could be taken before Christmas. She's running down the clock, shamelessly.
Is one of the reasons he’s taking such a pragmatic approach to the deal.
Since being marked out as brighter is clearly worth something in the labour market.
Question said 'write an essay, though. Still rankles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clOdyzP9fcw
Hopefully the edge of the Discworld is not a more appropriate analogy.
My name is a warning about the dangers of mass immigration.
That's when they were hard before Blair ruined it all.
Her strategy is ineffective and I think it is reckless, but it is not disgraceful because they have options to get around it, they are just choosing not to exercise them. Talk of the nation being held to ransom is one of the more preposterous things that has popped up in the last couple of weeks, but given there is no clear majority supported outcome they are all holding us to ransome or none are.
After all, if the EU weren't so assiduously transparent, we might never have known quite how brutally May got treated in Brussels.
But these discussions are happening intergovernmentally, leader to leader, not by formal diplomatic channels. So we don't know what sweet nothings Macron and Merkel and Varadkar are whispering in May's ear.
However, it does seem that May's desire to bounce Tusk into calling yet another emergency EUCO summit in January looks like a very slim hope after the vicious Salzburging she took last week. Tusk reiterated today that he has no further mandate to call an EUCO summit to discuss an issue that the leaders have made very clear that, as far as they are concerned, is finished.
No point arguing with you, I pointed out to you over the last few years that UKIP were legitimising bigotry and racism and you denied it, and look at them now, the political wing of Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
Will Mrs May suddenly rise to her feet and say … "He's right you know, socialism is the answer. How foolish I've been." or McDonnell rise and say "There's a lot to be said for Capitalism, please forgive my foolish ways."
We'll have seven days debate and not one mind will be changed by all that hot air. Threats, patronage or arm-twisting however ….
Why not cut out the nonsense and just vote. MPs could be a part-time job then, or even a zero-hours one.
Brexit *means* Brexit.
I need to become more accomplished, fast, I am falling behind my generation.
May has spent 2 years telling us that we have to back her in the national interest. That whatever she says is in the national interest.
No consultations. no listening to oppostion figures. No cross-party working / engagement groups. Brexit means Brexit and you're either for me or against me. Lost majority? NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Now she's saying that she has a deal and that backing her is the only way to be sure of preventing no deal. is it any surprise that she's got every single opposition MP except Stephen Lloyd telling her to sod off?
Every time I have sympathy with her - and I do, on a personal level - I'm reminded of her total arrogance and high-handedness. I really don't feel history will judge her kindly - easily the worst PM I can remember.
She can only really surprise me on the upside now!
"In retrospect, putting the tiger enclosure next door to the school was perhaps an error of judgement. We shall learn the lessons of this so that never again are fifteen tigers let loose by teenage delinquents."
Edited extra bit: was hunting for a word and used the wrong one in error, hence change.
Once you have 40% to 50% going to University it's harder to justify the other 50% to 60% paying their fees.
Mrs May can point a gun at her head and shout I'LL SHOOT I MEAN IT DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!!! as many times as she likes. It's not going to change anything.
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1070072680374784001
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1070072685164683266
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1070072687484198919
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1070072689862291456
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1070072692164960257
But obviously in practice the chances of an MP being swayed by the comments in the chamber are vanishingly small, and since most of the time you're under a party whip what even the point of defending the way you vote.
As per Erskine May:
In principle, a member is not permitted to read a speech, but may make reference to notes. Similarly, a member may read extracts from documents but such extract and quotations should be reasonably short. The purpose of this rule is to maintain the cut and thrust of debate, which depends upon successive speakers meeting in their speeches to some extent the arguments of earlier speeches; debate is more than a series of set speeches prepared beforehand without reference to each other.
But yes anti Islamic behaviour from UKIP under Farage is unimaginable.
"Did you ever find out why? There's a connection but to my mind somewhat tenuous."
Lung illnesses are caused by respirable crystalline silica (RCS) which has a very low maximum exposure limit. Limestone by comparison is relatively harmless. Confusing the two should ensure a fail in the examination - even if the general public often do.
The government acts and the opposition reacts. Acting attracts the blame.
I've less information than a vegetable, animal, or mineral,
I love the kings of England, and I fight the fights historical
From Amsterdam to Maastricht, in order categorical;
I'm ill acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
For me all votes of confidence are problematical,
About the evils of Europe I'm teeming with a lot o' news, (bothered for a rhyme)
With many dismal facts about those awful remainers' views.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster
Nigel Farage: 'Jewish lobby' has disproportionate power in the US
'Farage’s clumsy use of the terms Israel and Jewish lobby interchangeably and his reference to their ‘power’ has crossed the line into well-known antisemitic tropes,' says Board of Deputies
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/us-jewish-lobby-nigel-farage-power-anti-semitism-ukip-leader-a8031191.html
https://order-order.com/2018/12/17/uk-eu-agree-maintain-common-transition-convention-even-no-deal/
NEW THREAD
"Hmm. This was in a IVth Form chemistry course and the issue was a bout protesting against a limestone quarry, as raised by Mr Tyndall."
There's little point protesting about a limestone quarry. Limestone dust is virtually neither respirable or crystalline. Nothing is harmless (even water are toxic in excess) but there's a world of difference between RCS and limestone dust. That's before we get into the specifics of the dilution effect.
PS I did get an A in Chemistry A level in the sixties.
Until Baker changed the system in the late 80s , 30% of ALevel entrants failed to achieve the minimum E grade pass. Today a mere 2.5% fail to do so.
A Christmas miracle.