People mewling about the “anti democratic” Remoaners seem remarkably quiet about the growing consensus that rogue social media spending and activity played a significant role in the Brexit referendum.
There isn't a 'growing consensus'. Just the same old accusations being repeated time and time again by those with a vested interest in trying to show that social media is the reason their favoured outcome was beaten.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
On a par with Karen Bradley.
Still, look on the bright side, it wasn't as bad as David Miliband's 2006 insult to Brazil, when he proposed selling off the Amazon to foreigners.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
People mewling about the “anti democratic” Remoaners seem remarkably quiet about the growing consensus that rogue social media spending and activity played a significant role in the Brexit referendum.
There isn't a 'growing consensus'. Just the same old accusations being repeated time and time again by those with a vested interest in trying to show that social media is the reason their favoured outcome was beaten.
All the loser lot, blame their ill's on the impact of social media. What they completely ignore is the brand companies with massive budgets & hugely sophisticated analytical tools struggle to prove ROI on social media spending. And these brand companies are much better at politicians at getting their messages across and selling huge quantities of products.
And of course if social media and of most significantly those Russian bots on twitter (which no one even found existed until months after the referendum) etc etc were responsible for leave winning - how come those most likely to use social media on a regular basis (i.e. young people under 30) voted nearly 3 to 1 remain?
Maybe just maybe people voted the way they did because of what they saw was impacting them in their real day to day lives and their personal experiences in the real world - not the social media bubble! Just a thought!
Politicians must shake hands with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in such a way.
In fact I'm surprised the Mail has published this because it looks good for Jeremy. He is clearly dissing the guy. He offers his hand in a half-hearted manner and looks away. His face - Jeremy's - is a picture of contempt. The message that he has no time for this mealy-mouthed apologist for Islamic fundamentalist terror is unmistakable.
People mewling about the “anti democratic” Remoaners seem remarkably quiet about the growing consensus that rogue social media spending and activity played a significant role in the Brexit referendum.
There isn't a 'growing consensus'. Just the same old accusations being repeated time and time again by those with a vested interest in trying to show that social media is the reason their favoured outcome was beaten.
I have. It says nothing at all about a growing consensus that social media spending and activity played a significant role in the result - which is a direct quote of what Gardenwalker claimed. It says there are claims and that time should be given to investigate them. Those same claims have been around since the result and are more a sign of Remainers being bad losers and thrashing around for excuses as to why they lost.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
On a par with Karen Bradley.
Still, look on the bright side, it wasn't as bad as David Miliband's 2006 insult to Brazil, when he proposed selling off the Amazon to foreigners.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
According to the Guardian our Embassy's announcement was that he was in the country 'to meet Karl Erjavec, when in fact he left his role as foreign secretary last year.' Which doesn't say a lot for the staff-work at our Embassy.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
I think Cable hasbeen part of Tigger planning. Just as the Liberals encouraged Roy Jenkins to form a new party rather than defect to the Liberals, Cable is doing the same. He is old enough to remember the first SDP, and to learn some lessons on what to do differently, and what worked before.
been out in the garden
FPT
I said we are on the first wave of AI, it wont really hit us for until the 2020s and we are woefully prepared for it.
as for the pyramids its how we have been for ages, we have few plans for coping with it bar screaming that the NHS needs more money but I can see us having to bite the bullet on assisted death at some point. Its a debate we should be having.
There appears to have been a Catholic interpretation of life, never mind the value feel the length, which politicians have become wedded to. From my knowledge, assisted death did happen but a combination of relatives seeming to want to extend the life of relatives (notwithstanding that that were frequently ignored when they had something to give), the police seemingly keen to get involved and Shipman has rather changed things. I’ve seen palliative/hospice care for close relatives and it’s hardly the panacea some would pretend. It emotionally destroyed others and left me wanting very close relatives to die to spare the living the pain.
A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
On a par with Karen Bradley.
Still, look on the bright side, it wasn't as bad as David Miliband's 2006 insult to Brazil, when he proposed selling off the Amazon to foreigners.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
I think there are two factors:
- Hunt thinks that anywhere not part of the West during the Cold War was a "Soviet vassal". - Hunt thinks said "Soviet vassals" look gratefully upon Margaret Thatcher as their liberator, and that reminding them of this will help the UK.
They can believe in anything they want but the more things they believe in the more offputting it will be for more and more people. And that would be before they had the difficulties of putting any of their beliefs into practice in government. We saw how quickly the LibDem beliefs in opposing tuition fees increases and Middle Eastern warmongering disappeared when they were in government.
Not at all, Mr Richard. You need to distinguish between Lib Dems as a whole - who held fast to their principles and beliefs. And the Lib Dem MPs who went into Coalition with the moderate Conservatives. The latter had to compromise on some issues - that is the nature of a Coalition. It doesn`t mean that even they were happy about it.
My LibDems good, your LibDems bad My LibDems good, your LibDems bad My LibDems good, your LibDems bad Bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat, bleat
Perhaps you'd like to tell us that it will be different next time ?
You think there will be a next time?
I don`t understand the rest of what you are saying.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
I don't disagree with you about immigration but why EU immigration? I would suggest there are vast numbers of highly educated non EU nationals who could do the job just as well and if they come from India, for example, have the benefit of having English as one of their two official languages and of having a lot of cultural ties. I have no problem with filling our work force with EU migrants, I just wonder why you would prefer them over other countries?
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
I think Cable hasbeen part of Tigger planning. Just as the Liberals encouraged Roy Jenkins to form a new party rather than defect to the Liberals, Cable is doing the same. He is old enough to remember the first SDP, and to learn some lessons on what to do differently, and what worked before.
been out in the garden
FPT
I said we are on the first wave of AI, it wont really hit us for until the 2020s and we are woefully prepared for it.
as for the pyramids its how we have been for ages, we have few plans for coping with it bar screaming that the NHS needs more money but I can see us having to bite the bullet on assisted death at some point. Its a debate we should be having.
There appears to have been a Catholic interpretation of life, never mind the value feel the length, which politicians have become wedded to. From my knowledge, assisted death did happen but a combination of relatives seeming to want to extend the life of relatives (notwithstanding that that were frequently ignored when they had something to give), the police seemingly keen to get involved and Shipman has rather changed things. I’ve seen palliative/hospice care for close relatives and it’s hardly the panacea some would pretend. It emotionally destroyed others and left me wanting very close relatives to die to spare the living the pain.
A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
Having watched enough people I know fall in to the pit of dementia I personally wouldnt like to spend years just being there but not. There is such a thing as quality of life and at some point society will have to face up to the issue that some of us will want to go on our own terms.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Or alternatively we could encourage the people already here to have more children, like they do in France for example.
When the Great Leader gets into power, he won't have to worry about such things as he will be funding all those Fake News outlets, I mean Citizen Journalism....Sqwawkbox and alike won't bother him with any such annoying questions.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
.
been out in the garden
FPT
I said we are on the first wave of AI, it wont really hit us for until the 2020s and we are woefully prepared for it.
as for the pyramids its how we have been for ages, we have few plans for coping with it bar screaming that the NHS needs more money but I can see us having to bite the bullet on assisted death at some point. Its a debate we should be having.
There appears to have been a Catholic interpretation of life, never mind the value feel the length, which politicians have become wedded to. From my knowledge, assisted death did happen but a combination of relatives seeming to want to extend the life of relatives (notwithstanding that that were frequently ignored when they had something to give), the police seemingly keen to get involved and Shipman has rather changed things. I’ve seen palliative/hospice care for close relatives and it’s hardly the panacea some would pretend. It emotionally destroyed others and left me wanting very close relatives to die to spare the living the pain.
A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
Having watched enough people I know fall in to the pit of dementia I personally wouldnt like to spend years just being there but not. There is such a thing as quality of life and at some point society will have to face up to the issue that some of us will want to go on our own terms.
I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
If the Tories pick either Saj or Hunt and either of them makes a decent fist of being PM (not hard after May), with an on the plate standing up for the UK message in the next part of the EU exit process, there's no space for a new centre party to do anything.
Cannot see how they succeed other than taking lots of moderate labour votes and potentially seats.
The number of Labour and LD Remainers who would vote for Javid and Hunt Brexit can be counted on one hand, if they defect it will be to TIG.
If Javid and Hunt were seen as not Brexity enough by Leavers though Farage's new Brexit Party could benefit
People mewling about the “anti democratic” Remoaners seem remarkably quiet about the growing consensus that rogue social media spending and activity played a significant role in the Brexit referendum.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
Politicians must shake hands with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in such a way.
In fact I'm surprised the Mail has published this because it looks good for Jeremy. He is clearly dissing the guy. He offers his hand in a half-hearted manner and looks away. His face - Jeremy's - is a picture of contempt. The message that he has no time for this mealy-mouthed apologist for Islamic fundamentalist terror is unmistakable.
If one lays the sins of their clients upon lawyers we may as well not have a criminal justice system at all.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
If you'd suggested that Marshal Tito was Stalin's vassal he'd have had you shot.
Seriously, Yugoslavia broke with the Soviet grouping, the Comitern rather spectacularly and lined up with such states as India in the Non-Aligned Movement. It also accepted US aid.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
The last part.
I travelled through that region in the early 80s and it was very obvious, transiting by train from Yugoslavia to Romania (a two hour customs search with dogs, armed border guards, the works) that the real iron curtain was on that border, not the transit from Italy to Yugoslavia which was comparatively painless.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
It wasn't an Eastern bloc vassal state. It was Communist but independent of the Soviet Union and not in the Warsaw Pact. So it wasn't in the Eastern bloc and it wasn't a vassal.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
I don't disagree with you about immigration but why EU immigration? I would suggest there are vast numbers of highly educated non EU nationals who could do the job just as well and if they come from India, for example, have the benefit of having English as one of their two official languages and of having a lot of cultural ties. I have no problem with filling our work force with EU migrants, I just wonder why you would prefer them over other countries?
Because that would mean some reciprocal arrangements so Brits could go the other way. I’d like to see a programme where younger people and students can have more opportunities . With freedom of movement going generally I’d like to see an exception for that group . It’s not fair that the younger generation who so wanted to remain should lose that opportunity . Indeed if May had not been so clueless and anti immigrant she could have pushed for this to try and heal some of the divisions .
An interesting article, @david_herdson, thank you. I find the new grouping rather confusing, because although I have the greatest respect for those who found the courage to leave the Labour party I can't say the same of those who didn't leave the Conservatives until there was a passing bandwagon.
From what I can see, the Labour party has indeed changed out of all recognition, and not in ways that were reflected in the 2017 GE manifesto. OTOH, the Conservatives don't appear to me to have changed that much. Any MPs who were happy to be elected under the Conservative banner in 2017 need to look elsewhere to excuse their jumping ship.
From what I can see, what has changed is that there's now a better chance of them getting their own way by jumping ship. Fair enough, if it's that important to them, but it doesn't fill me with respect for them.
And, incidentally, their use of the TIG group in this way damages my opinion of the group as a whole.
People mewling about the “anti democratic” Remoaners seem remarkably quiet about the growing consensus that rogue social media spending and activity played a significant role in the Brexit referendum.
There isn't a 'growing consensus'. Just the same old accusations being repeated time and time again by those with a vested interest in trying to show that social media is the reason their favoured outcome was beaten.
I have. It says nothing at all about a growing consensus that social media spending and activity played a significant role in the result - which is a direct quote of what Gardenwalker claimed. It says there are claims and that time should be given to investigate them. Those same claims have been around since the result and are more a sign of Remainers being bad losers and thrashing around for excuses as to why they lost.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Or alternatively we could encourage the people already here to have more children, like they do in France for example.
We do encourage people to have kids though in the UK - but only generally if they are on welfare and get housing benefit. Most employers don't offer to pay you more just because you have a child - the taxpayer does though.
If however you have to pay and provide for your own housing via work its a bit tougher - you can't just demand a £25k pay rise so you can raise sufficient extra mortgage to buy a house with an extra one or two bedrooms in high costs areas like London and the south east. Of course the council via housing benefit may well provide if you need to rent another one or two beds if you are too 'poor' to afford the costs.
Maybe we wouldn't have such high levels of child poverty if we incentivised those on average and above average earnings to have more kids - by making housing more affordable. Let alone the child care costs as both parents have to work long hours to pay the mortgage. But as they have to fund the full costs including the extra rent or mortgage they tend not to find it as easy - so don't have the kids.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Or alternatively we could encourage the people already here to have more children, like they do in France for example.
A sex subsidy? Now there's a policy I can get behind!
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Or alternatively we could encourage the people already here to have more children, like they do in France for example.
We do encourage people to have kids though in the UK - but only generally if they are on welfare and get housing benefit. Most employers don't offer to pay you more just because you have a child - the taxpayer does though.
If however you have to pay and provide for your own housing via work its a bit tougher - you can't just demand a £25k pay rise so you can raise sufficient extra mortgage to buy a house with an extra one or two bedrooms in high costs areas like London and the south east. Of course the council via housing benefit may well provide if you need to rent another one or two beds if you are too 'poor' to afford the costs.
Maybe we wouldn't have such high levels of child poverty if we incentivised those on average and above average earnings to have more kids - by making housing more affordable. Let alone the child care costs as both parents have to work long hours to pay the mortgage. But as they have to fund the full costs including the extra rent or mortgage they tend not to find it as easy - so don't have the kids.
There's a limit on child benefit at the bottom of the heap, isn't there?
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Or alternatively we could encourage the people already here to have more children, like they do in France for example.
We do encourage people to have kids though in the UK - but only generally if they are on welfare and get housing benefit. Most employers don't offer to pay you more just because you have a child - the taxpayer does though.
If however you have to pay and provide for your own housing via work its a bit tougher - you can't just demand a £25k pay rise so you can raise sufficient extra mortgage to buy a house with an extra one or two bedrooms in high costs areas like London and the south east. Of course the council via housing benefit may well provide if you need to rent another one or two beds if you are too 'poor' to afford the costs.
Maybe we wouldn't have such high levels of child poverty if we incentivised those on average and above average earnings to have more kids - by making housing more affordable. Let alone the child care costs as both parents have to work long hours to pay the mortgage. But as they have to fund the full costs including the extra rent or mortgage they tend not to find it as easy - so don't have the kids.
Increasing child benefit may help but in terms of western nations we actually are near the top of children per woman, only New Zealand and France and Ireland and Sweden have more
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Mr. Walker, if Begum ends up returning, that'll make Javid look weak and hamper his chances.
If I was Johnson, Gove or Hunt I’d be encouraging Begum’s appeal.
In fact, Johnson could do worse (from the freedom of the backbenches) than rediscovering his liberal instincts and speaking out against the dangerous precedent Javid is trying to set.
The UK needs more EU immigration . Generally EU nationals have a good education , are less likely to go on benefits and commit less crime than the resident population . The current gene pool is being overwhelmed by an increase in clueless people popping out babies at an alarming rate , with poor education and a chip on their shoulder and blaming everyone else for their crap lives , most of the anger directed at immigrants who are a darned sight better for the UK .
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
I don't disagree with you about immigration but why EU immigration? I would suggest there are vast numbers of highly educated non EU nationals who could do the job just as well and if they come from India, for example, have the benefit of having English as one of their two official languages and of having a lot of cultural ties. I have no problem with filling our work force with EU migrants, I just wonder why you would prefer them over other countries?
Because that would mean some reciprocal arrangements so Brits could go the other way. I’d like to see a programme where younger people and students can have more opportunities . With freedom of movement going generally I’d like to see an exception for that group . It’s not fair that the younger generation who so wanted to remain should lose that opportunity . Indeed if May had not been so clueless and anti immigrant she could have pushed for this to try and heal some of the divisions .
I return to the facts mentioned a few days ago. Over 70% of Britons living outside the UK live in non EU countries. The idea that Brexit stops people travelling, living or working abroad is just fanciful.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
If you have a terminal disease maybe, legalising assisted death as you might be a bit lonely is another matter. Greater use of social clubs, incentivising relatives to visit etc is far better
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
If you'd suggested that Marshal Tito was Stalin's vassal he'd have had you shot.
Seriously, Yugoslavia broke with the Soviet grouping, the Comitern rather spectacularly and lined up with such states as India in the Non-Aligned Movement. It also accepted US aid.
Tito had a lot of flaws but he was masterful at playing off the West and the East against each other to get the best for his country. Following on from the conversation last week we have Churchill to thank for the foresight in fostering good relations with Tito both during and after the war. It is well worth reading Fitzroy Maclean's Eastern Approaches to see why Churchill was so important in this.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
He managed to take a question about his handling of antisemitism, and turn it into a question about his handling of questions about his handling of antisemitism...
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
He should have known, but it wasa stupid thing to say, and its stupidity would have been even more so if it had been true, such as if he said the same thing in Poland or Hungary.
The current Betfair odds for No Deal on 29 March imply a probability of just under 20%. That's consistent with a 90% chance of the government asking for an extension, and a 90% chance that the Council would agree to an extension if asked for.
On that basis, is it obvious that 20% is too high, I wonder?
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Is there a no subject where, in a few words, you can quickly prove your ignorance? There can be plenty of history in PPE if that’s what you want.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Is there a no subject where, in a few words, you can quickly prove your ignorance? There can be plenty of history in PPE if that’s what you want.
Politics, philosophy and economics is not history in any of those elements, you may touch on some history when studying political or philosophical theory but that is not the same as a proper chronological historical narrative however many insults you wish to throw around!
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems most unlikely to achieve anything.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are both separate political spaces, but certainly in England and Wales most voters are now disenfranchised. In something like 95% of constituencies, you either have no choice at all because they are safe, or a choice between a party that is both pro-Brexit, pro-austerity and broadly economically liberal; or one that isn't completely sure what it is over Brexit, is anti-austerity, antisemitic and socialist. For the large majority of voters, this means we either get the turd we're given or a choice of which turd smells less bad. There is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems most unlikely to achieve anything.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are both separate political spaces, but certainly in England and Wales most voters are now disenfranchised. In something like 95% of constituencies, you either have no choice at all because they are safe, or a choice between a party that is both pro-Brexit, pro-austerity and broadly economically liberal; or one that isn't completely sure what it is over Brexit, is anti-austerity, antisemitic and socialist. For the large majority of voters, this means we either get the turd we're given or a choice of which turd smells less bad. There is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems most unlikely to achieve anything.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are both separate political spaces, but certainly in England and Wales most voters are now disenfranchised. In something like 95% of constituencies, you either have no choice at all because they are safe, or a choice between a party that is both pro-Brexit, pro-austerity and broadly economically liberal; or one that isn't completely sure what it is over Brexit, is anti-austerity, antisemitic and socialist. For the large majority of voters, this means we either get the turd we're given or a choice of which turd smells less bad. There is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
The last part.
I travelled through that region in the early 80s and it was very obvious, transiting by train from Yugoslavia to Romania (a two hour customs search with dogs, armed border guards, the works) that the real iron curtain was on that border, not the transit from Italy to Yugoslavia which was comparatively painless.
Indeed. Slovenia in the mid 70s didn't seem that different to Austria or Italy. Portraits of Tito everywhere were really the only hint of a difference. Of course I couldn't read the language or the absence of a free press might have been another clue.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
I think that our law, if illogical, is about right. If you wish to assist someone's death, you need to satisfy the authorities that you had very good reason to do so. I think that's a valuable safeguard against putting pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems most unlikely to achieve anything.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are both separate political spaces, but certainly in England and Wales most voters are now disenfranchised. In something like 95% of constituencies, you either have no choice at all because they are safe, or a choice between a party that is both pro-Brexit, pro-austerity and broadly economically liberal; or one that isn't completely sure what it is over Brexit, is anti-austerity, antisemitic and socialist. For the large majority of voters, this means we either get the turd we're given or a choice of which turd smells less bad. There is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
How long before we can all sing, 'The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one'
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems here is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
They are on 14% in the latest poll if they stand a full slate of candidates
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Come to think of it, why has JRM never been even a junior minister? He must be one of the few Old Etonians whom David Cameron did not appoint to high office. We cannot know if he'd have been any good as a minister but he certainly seems a plausible candidate, being charismatic, with a good speaking voice; not to mention having made piles of cash in the City.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems here is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
They are on 14% in the latest poll if they stand a full slate of candidates
That was my point. Do we really think they are going to? They are not an actual party yet so there's an excuse for not standing in the next by-election, but I cannot imagine they are keen to face the electorate.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
I'd rather help the lonely of course. I do think though that we are in danger of getting ourselves into a deeper mess. A Royal Commission with people from the hospice movement etc, plus very much older lawyers and great and good might be helpful.
I've often felt that part of the problem with the NHS is that the people who make the important decisions on it have little or no experience of it.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Come to think of it, why has JRM never been even a junior minister? He must be one of the few Old Etonians whom David Cameron did not appoint to high office. We cannot know if he'd have been any good as a minister but he certainly seems a plausible candidate, being charismatic, with a good speaking voice; not to mention having made piles of cash in the City.
The very likelihood that TIG probably won't get very far in the long run - even if it adopts a good strategy and develops an attractive policy platform - is symptomatic of the wider structural problem - which is, of course, that given FPTP and the huge inbuilt advantages enjoyed by the two big parties (national structures and memberships, finance, incumbency, and most of all brand recognition allied to huge numbers of habit voters,) it seems near impossible for anyone else to make a serious dent in their support.
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems here is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
TIG have ensured though that under FPTP it will be more difficult for Labour to win a majority or even become largest party, early polling suggests TIG is getting more ex Labour than ex Tory voters
Are they going to get any voters? Who is to say how many Tiggers will stand and where.
They are on 14% in the latest poll if they stand a full slate of candidates
That was my point. Do we really think they are going to? They are not an actual party yet so there's an excuse for not standing in the next by-election, but I cannot imagine they are keen to face the electorate.
They will likely form a pact with the LDs eventually as to who stands where
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Come to think of it, why has JRM never been even a junior minister? He must be one of the few Old Etonians whom David Cameron did not appoint to high office. We cannot know if he'd have been any good as a minister but he certainly seems a plausible candidate, being charismatic, with a good speaking voice; not to mention having made piles of cash in the City.
Conflicts of interest.
Apparently his investments are so wide and diverse that it would be impossible for him to give them up or put into a blind trust that becoming a minister is not an option for JRM.
How did it even happen, though, that Jeremy Hunt got it so wrong? First, it is general knowledge; second, Yugoslavia was pretty big news; but surely in any case you'd think that on being appointed Foreign Secretary, he might have looked at a map; that in preparing to visit Slovenia, he might have been briefed on the place by the FCO and our ambassador, and maybe called up Wikipedia on his phone on the way to the airport. Does Hunt write his own speeches? Did no civil servant at least read it through?
It is literally incredible.
Perhaps the influence of Boris Johnson's tenure there was so pervasive that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has become institutionally buffoonist.
I don't think Boris ever made as big a historical gaffe as Hunt has
Lol. His entire career was one gaffe after another.
You can't blame a public school education either as the 'expert' on N Ireland politics went to a State school! She did, though, do Maths at Uni which suggests she may not have gone near a History or Current Affairs lesson for several years.
Jeremy Hunt went to Charterhouse, after which he gained a first in PPE, just like his contemporary, David Cameron. Grade inflation at Oxford!
No history in PPE though, maybe having a historian again as Foreign Secretary like Douglas Hurd was would help
Come to think of it, why has JRM never been even a junior minister? He must be one of the few Old Etonians whom David Cameron did not appoint to high office. We cannot know if he'd have been any good as a minister but he certainly seems a plausible candidate, being charismatic, with a good speaking voice; not to mention having made piles of cash in the City.
Conflicts of interest.
Apparently his investments are so wide and diverse that it would be impossible for him to give them up or put into a blind trust that becoming a minister is not an option for JRM.
Do we think he will actually listen and properly discipline offenders? Or will it be the same old same old? And will Jezza again be arguing that he must have the right to claim Israel doesn't have the right to exist?
Does Corbyn have a stated preference for resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue? It has just crossed my mind that I have never heard what it is.
Yes, he favours either a two-state solution or, if it can be agreed between Israel and the Palestinians, a joint secular state. He acknowledges that the latter is unlikely so the two-state solution remains the preference.
On topic, the oddest thing about TIG is timing. Surely it would have been better to wait till after the end of March, when Brexit, whether Deal or No Deal, will throw all the cards into the air?
What else is there? Contempt for Jeremy Corbyn is not a policy platform, and nor is thinking there are some evil trolls on Twitter.
And any TIG position on Brexit will need to change in a few weeks, so why not hold their noses and wait till they could develop a post-Brexit (or post-revocation) manifesto?
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
He should have known, but it wasa stupid thing to say, and its stupidity would have been even more so if it had been true, such as if he said the same thing in Poland or Hungary.
It seems like pretty small beer to me.
Yes, it is to him, but not to his hosts.
Not wantonly insulting hosts that you want support from is not abad starting point for a diplomat
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
He should have known, but it wasa stupid thing to say, and its stupidity would have been even more so if it had been true, such as if he said the same thing in Poland or Hungary.
It seems like pretty small beer to me.
Yes, it is to him, but not to his hosts.
Not wantonly insulting hosts that you want support from is not abad starting point for a diplomat
That sort of forgetful casualness particularly irritates our erstwhile partners. A bit like Priti Patels remarks about food and the Irish Republic.
The Any Answers programme on R4 was largely hostile to the Independents, mainly because of supposed lack of policies and general vagueness, though who knows whether phone-ins are representative. Like David I think they'll need to develop a direction pretty quickly or they'll be seen as a pointless pre-retirement project.
One effect of the defections is of course to reduce the pressure of dissidents in the PLP. When so many people were expecting Momentum to try to deselect the most critical MPs, it didn't really occur to anyone that they'd deselect themselves. Leslie and Soubry are from the Nottingham area, incidentally, where the LibDems are pretty weak - that may be why they didn't switch to them. Soubry gets on with local LibDems reasonably civilly and I don't think there's an ideological gulf.
Canvass anecdotes from today's session - several comments about the "bewildering" national scene, but people seeing it as baffling rather than a reason to switch parties. Both Tory and Labour support felt quite settled.
How long before we can all sing, 'The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one'
Possibly not very long. Any scenario involving a GE in the Summer (such as May resigning and her successor calling one to obtain a mandate, further fragmentation of the Labour Party tempting the Tories to roll the dice, or both) would leave them with no time to evolve into a party, even assuming that's what they want to do.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
"Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely."
A glass of barbituates costs less than a couple of days stay in a nursing home or a couple of doses or morphine that given instead. If you want to die a horrible miserable painful death from cancer that should be your choice - but why deny others the chance to die with some dignity at a time of their choosing. Because at the moment we treat our cats and horses with more dignity than humans suffering in pain and misery who want to die.
Re loneliness I was merely referencing the issue of those who have no one to care for them - and no relatives to inherit by promoting their end.
No one should be forced - but no one should be denied their right either.
1. Jeremy Hunt’s vassal comment in Slovenia was daft, but blame his speechwriter or aides. However, he does come across as having the charisma of a old mop. Lay Hunt, and - sadly - put your money on Javid.
2. The TIGs are not a flash in the pan. This is the culmination of months if not years of planning. They are well-funded and well-connected, and the polling does show a fatigue with the existing parties. What their strategy is, I cannot tell, but it is foolish to write them off.
3. Brexit is still most likely to go through, but the odds of Remaining via a referendum have grown a little higher. The TIGs have made it acceptable to advocate for this, John Cryer’s note is significant, as are John McDonnell’s comments. I’d put the chances of a referendum around 25%.
4. Assuming we do Brexit 29 March, May will be gone within weeks if not days.
On 1. - Hunt should have known.
The facts are Slovenia was part of Tito’s Yugoslavia, didn’t sign Warsaw Pact but was eastern bloc vassal state? What part of those facts are wrong?
The last part.
I travelled through that region in the early 80s and it was very obvious, transiting by train from Yugoslavia to Romania (a two hour customs search with dogs, armed border guards, the works) that the real iron curtain was on that border, not the transit from Italy to Yugoslavia which was comparatively painless.
Indeed. Slovenia in the mid 70s didn't seem that different to Austria or Italy. Portraits of Tito everywhere were really the only hint of a difference. Of course I couldn't read the language or the absence of a free press might have been another clue.
Tito was no vassal. Far from it. He was a right pain for various Soviet leaders as he ploughed his own furrow.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
The current Betfair odds for No Deal on 29 March imply a probability of just under 20%. That's consistent with a 90% chance of the government asking for an extension, and a 90% chance that the Council would agree to an extension if asked for.
On that basis, is it obvious that 20% is too high, I wonder?
Laying BF no deal exit at 5.1 is a great bet. You even win if a no deal exit follows a delay (not that this is likely)
He does make a sort of valid point - is politics about personalities or helping people?
The word Chuka or Soubry has probably been mentioned far more times this week by the political commentariat than say the words housing, homelessness, education or healthcare. The TIGgers of course probably couldn't agree on a policy to solve those - and don't seem that interested either unless it involves a 'people's vote'.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Let's face it, the most likely outcome is that we'll equivocate and resist and avoid decisions for another 20 years, and spend nothing on either.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
"I've worked on geriatric wards, with hospices, and with Care Homes, I've had elderly relations who were way out of it and I've seen a younger person (a very close relative) die of MND.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
My concern is that a right to die becomes a duty to die, for economic reasons.
Are we really incapable of devising sufficient safeguards against that possibility? To the extent that we condemn people to die that "painful miserable death"?
Certainly seems to suggest that we'd rather spend our money on setting up a system to help the lonely to commit suicide rather than on setting up a system to help the lonely.
Who's talking about loneliness? Think about suffering from terminal cancer. Does society have the right to insist you drain the last drop, even if you want to end it?
I am not aware of any evidence of economic coercion being an issue in countries/states where assisted suicide is legal. If anyone can point me to studies that show this to be a real issue then please do so.
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
The only economic pressure that I've seen is from relations who think they might inherit money or goods and fight tooth and nail to keep their relative in hospital (free) rather than be discharged to a care home (charged). TBH, that's in no-one's interests. I've no idea how they feel about it afterwards.
Comments
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/1099099195708002310
This though is IMO good news and highlights a failure of Osbrowne economics:
' First-time buyers now make up the majority of home purchases bought with a mortgage in the UK, figures show.
The Halifax bank said the last time such a situation existed was 1995. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47336500
It is literally incredible.
Maybe just maybe people voted the way they did because of what they saw was impacting them in their real day to day lives and their personal experiences in the real world - not the social media bubble! Just a thought!
Personally I’d much prefer to have immigrants as neighbours than some hideous chav family with gobby out of control children .
Which doesn't say a lot for the staff-work at our Embassy.
I hope someone has been appropriately chewed up.
A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
- Hunt thinks that anywhere not part of the West during the Cold War was a "Soviet vassal".
- Hunt thinks said "Soviet vassals" look gratefully upon Margaret Thatcher as their liberator, and that reminding them of this will help the UK.
I don`t understand the rest of what you are saying.
When the Great Leader gets into power, he won't have to worry about such things as he will be funding all those Fake News outlets, I mean Citizen Journalism....Sqwawkbox and alike won't bother him with any such annoying questions.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change.
If Javid and Hunt were seen as not Brexity enough by Leavers though Farage's new Brexit Party could benefit
https://twitter.com/GRAHAMMOORE11/status/1098902787696537600?s=20
Seriously, Yugoslavia broke with the Soviet grouping, the Comitern rather spectacularly and lined up with such states as India in the Non-Aligned Movement. It also accepted US aid.
I travelled through that region in the early 80s and it was very obvious, transiting by train from Yugoslavia to Romania (a two hour customs search with dogs, armed border guards, the works) that the real iron curtain was on that border, not the transit from Italy to Yugoslavia which was comparatively painless.
From what I can see, the Labour party has indeed changed out of all recognition, and not in ways that were reflected in the 2017 GE manifesto. OTOH, the Conservatives don't appear to me to have changed that much. Any MPs who were happy to be elected under the Conservative banner in 2017 need to look elsewhere to excuse their jumping ship.
From what I can see, what has changed is that there's now a better chance of them getting their own way by jumping ship. Fair enough, if it's that important to them, but it doesn't fill me with respect for them.
And, incidentally, their use of the TIG group in this way damages my opinion of the group as a whole.
Good afternoon, everybody.
If however you have to pay and provide for your own housing via work its a bit tougher - you can't just demand a £25k pay rise so you can raise sufficient extra mortgage to buy a house with an extra one or two bedrooms in high costs areas like London and the south east. Of course the council via housing benefit may well provide if you need to rent another one or two beds if you are too 'poor' to afford the costs.
Maybe we wouldn't have such high levels of child poverty if we incentivised those on average and above average earnings to have more kids - by making housing more affordable. Let alone the child care costs as both parents have to work long hours to pay the mortgage. But as they have to fund the full costs including the extra rent or mortgage they tend not to find it as easy - so don't have the kids.
Ho hum.
I've no problem in principle with assisted death, but I've seen the good and the bad. I would like to be able to make my own decision but I know that I might not be able to.
Consequently I agree with Matt; A Royal Commission is frequently a grass kicking exercise but here it might give cover to an effective change."
A Commission involving terminally ill people in pain might be one way of sorting it out - rather than ex judges, civil servants and full time quangocrats drinking tea who aren't experiencing the pain and problems.
There are a lot of elderly people living alone (hundreds of thousands) - loneliness is arguably one of our biggest 'diseases'. Many have no social contact, no friends, no relatives who care.
The emphasis is always on the greedy relatives who want the inheritance - but those are the people who suffer the most as they have no one and live in misery.
I take a very simple view - using the same logic as we apply for abortion. My body, my life my choice - if you have the right to request a life growing inside you is dealt with why cannot request your own life be ended when you decide its the right time. A glass of barbituates and a painless departure within a few minutes is surely preferable to months perhaps years of pain and suffering mental and physical.
Or in other words don't force your morals on others. If you want to die a painful miserable death needlessly that is your choice - but it may not be others!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
He managed to take a question about his handling of antisemitism, and turn it into a question about his handling of questions about his handling of antisemitism...
Awesome job
On that basis, is it obvious that 20% is too high, I wonder?
Especially now that the two main parties have such significant character and policy differences between them - so as detestation for one reinforces even more the tendency to back the other to keep it at bay - the only chance of a serious re-ordering of the party political system is for at least one out of the Tories or Labour to properly disintegrate. A revolt by a small handful of MPs seems most unlikely to achieve anything.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are both separate political spaces, but certainly in England and Wales most voters are now disenfranchised. In something like 95% of constituencies, you either have no choice at all because they are safe, or a choice between a party that is both pro-Brexit, pro-austerity and broadly economically liberal; or one that isn't completely sure what it is over Brexit, is anti-austerity, antisemitic and socialist. For the large majority of voters, this means we either get the turd we're given or a choice of which turd smells less bad. There is no point in our even bothering to participate, really.
If the party system were in any way reflective of the broad division of political opinion in the country then the FPTP constituency map would look very much more like that of the Leave/Remain voting pattern in the EU referendum, and if the system were properly representative of the range of opinion then it would be proportional and voters in all constituencies who did not back the winning party would still see their views receive some measure of representation, provided that there were a sufficient number of them in total to pass the required threshold. But, of course, it isn't so we're stuck.
It's why I'm so pessimistic about the chances of having Labour, as vile as it is, replaced by something more palatable. Arguably all the Marxist Jew-baiting front have to do is keep their grip secure, until a sufficiency of disengaged floating voters get bored enough of the Tories to grant them Buggins' turn. And then, God help us.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/23/venezuelan-soldiers-defect-troops-fire-tear-gas-protesters-colombia/
The Times apparently found 94 historian MPs but the article is paywalled so I cannot read it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-history-men-and-women-make-up-a-parliamentary-majority-qsphpstxn
Come to think of it, why has JRM never been even a junior minister? He must be one of the few Old Etonians whom David Cameron did not appoint to high office. We cannot know if he'd have been any good as a minister but he certainly seems a plausible candidate, being charismatic, with a good speaking voice; not to mention having made piles of cash in the City.
I've often felt that part of the problem with the NHS is that the people who make the important decisions on it have little or no experience of it.
Apparently his investments are so wide and diverse that it would be impossible for him to give them up or put into a blind trust that becoming a minister is not an option for JRM.
What else is there? Contempt for Jeremy Corbyn is not a policy platform, and nor is thinking there are some evil trolls on Twitter.
And any TIG position on Brexit will need to change in a few weeks, so why not hold their noses and wait till they could develop a post-Brexit (or post-revocation) manifesto?
Not wantonly insulting hosts that you want support from is not abad starting point for a diplomat
One effect of the defections is of course to reduce the pressure of dissidents in the PLP. When so many people were expecting Momentum to try to deselect the most critical MPs, it didn't really occur to anyone that they'd deselect themselves. Leslie and Soubry are from the Nottingham area, incidentally, where the LibDems are pretty weak - that may be why they didn't switch to them. Soubry gets on with local LibDems reasonably civilly and I don't think there's an ideological gulf.
Canvass anecdotes from today's session - several comments about the "bewildering" national scene, but people seeing it as baffling rather than a reason to switch parties. Both Tory and Labour support felt quite settled.
A glass of barbituates costs less than a couple of days stay in a nursing home or a couple of doses or morphine that given instead. If you want to die a horrible miserable painful death from cancer that should be your choice - but why deny others the chance to die with some dignity at a time of their choosing. Because at the moment we treat our cats and horses with more dignity than humans suffering in pain and misery who want to die.
Re loneliness I was merely referencing the issue of those who have no one to care for them - and no relatives to inherit by promoting their end.
No one should be forced - but no one should be denied their right either.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1099324664713756673
Isolation and loneliness are a serious issue. But again to cite scares around this to deny the right to die to those facing intolerable illness (whether mental or physical) is unacceptable.
Allowing an individual to choose the manner and timing of their own death is - to my mind - a deeply humane thing. It is a choice that I would not wish anyone felt they had to make - but the reality is that many people do want to make and are forced to take extreme action rather than being able to avail themselves of a dignified and controlled end to their pain.
The word Chuka or Soubry has probably been mentioned far more times this week by the political commentariat than say the words housing, homelessness, education or healthcare. The TIGgers of course probably couldn't agree on a policy to solve those - and don't seem that interested either unless it involves a 'people's vote'.
My impression is that the strongest advocates for a right to die tend to be those suffering in that situation, while those defending the sanctity of life and the hypothetically vulnerable tend to be (no doubt selflessly) speaking on behalf of others.
TBH, that's in no-one's interests. I've no idea how they feel about it afterwards.