Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
That is with less than 10% of the population Muslim, if we ever get close to 50% Muslim it might be a different story
That only really works if 100% of Muslims wanted Sharia law as the official law of the land to replace British law.
Can't say I know the statistics of British Muslims (only ones who can vote count) who would want that but you'd probably need to be closer to the country being 100% Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you wouldn't actually get a majority for it.
Many parts of the country e.g. Bradford and Slough and Bethnal Green would be close to 100% Muslim if the country was around 50% Muslim
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
A four hour dinner is interesting. If I were at the sharp end of a negotiation that was making little/no progress, the last thing I would be doing is spending four hours in their company over dinner. I'd be getting back to head office to have a lengthy debrief.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....
The key to a successful negotiaion is appreciating and understanding the environment in which the other party operates. Meeting in a more informal context can be very helpful with that. When I worked in industrial relations I spent far more time having lunches and dinners with union representatives than I would have liked, but it was mostly time well spent.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
Well recent events certainly ain't gonna inspire him to enter politics.
And there is part of the problem.
I think we want our scientists and medics working in those fields rather than politics with a few exceptions
Dilemma looming for Mrs May when her deal is rejected next week. Does she whip for or against no-deal or allow a free vote? I think the latter so that she can stay being all things to all men (btw that includes women).
We seem to have reached the point where our Prime Minister thinks that a "soft" Brexit - by far the least damaging for the country - can be used as some kind of "threat".
It depends who its addressed to. For quite a few MPs it is a threat. I fail to see the problem with that tactically.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
Dilemma looming for Mrs May when her deal is rejected next week. Does she whip for or against no-deal or allow a free vote? I think the latter so that she can stay being all things to all men (btw that includes women).
May should continue to whip for her Deal but allow free votes for No Deal or extending Article 50. May also has more chance of getting her Deal through if the alternative is seen as extending Article 50 and potentially EUref2 rather than No Deal
Yep, why would people of talent want to enter politics? We are at risk of having even more wall to wall careerist PPE graduates than we have today. It's depressing.
Couldn't agree more .... and that's a PPE graduate speaking.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
More generally, I think my son is far from unusual and if News channels want to get a younger audience they might think about covering more stories like this and less about the pointless vacillations of our political class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
A four hour dinner is interesting. If I were at the sharp end of a negotiation that was making little/no progress, the last thing I would be doing is spending four hours in their company over dinner. I'd be getting back to head office to have a lengthy debrief.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....
The key to a successful negotiaion is appreciating and understanding the environment in which the other party operates. Meeting in a more informal context can be very helpful with that. When I worked in industrial relations I spent far more time having lunches and dinners with union representatives than I would have liked, but it was mostly time well spent.
After nearly fifty years in general membership of the EU and two years on the specifics of Brexit, they know the environment in which the other operates.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Work and homes together? People need both those things they sound fantastic
Dilemma looming for Mrs May when her deal is rejected next week. Does she whip for or against no-deal or allow a free vote? I think the latter so that she can stay being all things to all men (btw that includes women).
I think you're right in her choice but wrong in what it will do. Both Jeremy Corbyn and she have triangulated so much on Brexit that now everyone assumes that they are against them rather than for them.
The chances of ministerial resignations must be high whatever she does.
As someone was unwise enough to mention cool science and engineering, here's a video of Japan's Hayabusa-2 probe landing on the asteroid Riyugu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xnInpqMiG4
To give some context, this is insanely far away, and is tricky because the asteroid's gravity is so low a person could probably jump up and reach escape velocity.
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
A four hour dinner is interesting. If I were at the sharp end of a negotiation that was making little/no progress, the last thing I would be doing is spending four hours in their company over dinner. I'd be getting back to head office to have a lengthy debrief.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....
The key to a successful negotiaion is appreciating and understanding the environment in which the other party operates. Meeting in a more informal context can be very helpful with that. When I worked in industrial relations I spent far more time having lunches and dinners with union representatives than I would have liked, but it was mostly time well spent.
After nearly fifty years in general membership of the EU and two years on the specifics of Brexit, they know the environment in which the other operates.
If only that were true, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I'm not sure why anyone is terribly interested in this negotiation. It's not going to produce anything meaningful. The only question is whether the Brexit extremists are going to allow themselves to be persuaded that it has. The signs are not good for the Prime Minister.
Couldn't you put that against every day? I'm so sick of hearing the two stories on this. One where it reports tough but constructive talks with much to do, the other how EU negotiators with the patience of saints were stunned as the British went over things they just wont accept and let's throw in a 'we don't know what they want' for good measure.
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
Couldn't you put that against every day? I'm so sick of hearing the two stories on this. One where it reports tough but constructive talks with much to do, the other how EU negotiators with the patience of saints were stunned as the British went over things they just wont accept and let's throw in a 'we don't know what they want' for good measure.
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
Perhaps the suffering induced by getting these updates is the point.
I'm not sure why anyone is terribly interested in this negotiation. It's not going to produce anything meaningful. The only question is whether the Brexit extremists are going to allow themselves to be persuaded that it has. The signs are not good for the Prime Minister.
Quite. Unless the EU makes a massive u turn then it's only tweaks and a great many have already pre dismissed that, heck they slapped on the label Cox's Codpiece immediately as part of that (though it is a funny name).
As May pointed out months ago (but is trying to ignore herself) there isn't scope for any big changes. And obsessing over the precise intricacies of small groups of words and obsessively over interpreting them isn't going to convince many.
Particularly as the more we try to sell it as significant the EU has to sell it as not, which gives more reason not to think it worth it to the erg and co
Couldn't you put that against every day? I'm so sick of hearing the two stories on this. One where it reports tough but constructive talks with much to do, the other how EU negotiators with the patience of saints were stunned as the British went over things they just wont accept and let's throw in a 'we don't know what they want' for good measure.
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
Perhaps the suffering induced by getting these updates is the point.
But it isn't those refusing to make a decision suffering its us.
Was very surprised the apparent (at least possible) curing of a man of HIV didn't make the news at ten yesterday.
My 15 year old was fascinated. To him it was pretty much the only story of the day and edged him ever closer to a career in science/medicine. He has to be persuaded that (a) money isn't everything but (b) that he can make money doing it. He has just done a futurewise assessment and has clear talents in those areas.
class.
While I accept the premise that the media classes can be obsessed with political process, I was just about to post how surprised I was that Brexit hadn’t led the broadcast news agenda for several days, given the timescale now.
Partly that’s because Nothing Has Changed, but I think there’s been a change in outlook over, say, the Major v Bastards era, when every whispered word to John Sargeant in the Commons tearoom would have led the Six.
Progress away from that (less so in the papers, maybe) and towards working out what has substantively changed is welcome - but I’d caution against too much “people are bored with Brexit, lead with something else” if it lets in the fake news merchants more.
I think one of the reasons is that finally we seem to have an adult doing some negotiating. Mr Cox seems not to have the need for a presser, after he meets Mr Barnier for a coffee. I welcome it.
A four hour dinner is interesting. If I were at the sharp end of a negotiation that was making little/no progress, the last thing I would be doing is spending four hours in their company over dinner. I'd be getting back to head office to have a lengthy debrief.
Not white smoke - but perhaps an indication that there is a deal to take back to Cabinet? Cancelling the press briefing was also a sign that there is a delicate position that needs to be explained, before the idiots in the media get a chance to go infantile, early.....
The key to a successful negotiaion is appreciating and understanding the environment in which the other party operates. Meeting in a more informal context can be very helpful with that. When I worked in industrial relations I spent far more time having lunches and dinners with union representatives than I would have liked, but it was mostly time well spent.
After nearly fifty years in general membership of the EU and two years on the specifics of Brexit, they know the environment in which the other operates.
If only that were true, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Couldn't you put that against every day? I'm so sick of hearing the two stories on this. One where it reports tough but constructive talks with much to do, the other how EU negotiators with the patience of saints were stunned as the British went over things they just wont accept and let's throw in a 'we don't know what they want' for good measure.
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
Perhaps the suffering induced by getting these updates is the point.
But it isn't those refusing to make a decision suffering its us.
Far be it from me to take pleasure in the suffering of others, but I'm sure others less principled may not be entirely unhappy about the extremely repetitive cycle of Brexiteers' pitiful hopes and dashed expectations.
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
Like Obama against Clinton at the stage of the contest ?
What's very clear is that this time around Democrats are only going to pick a candidate they think can beat Trump. That's the hurdle - only after that's cleared will they pick their favourite. Warren has plenty of time (and money) to demonstrate that she can, but it is definitely an advantage for the better known names at the start (ie Biden and Sanders). They have their own disadvantages, though.
It's only one group and of a specific type (African American women from South carolina) but I found the results both suprising and unsurprising. The Warren comments, calling here unpresidential but also completely dismissing the Native American stuff as a non factor completely aligned with what I'd been reading amongst Dems at large.
Biden over Harris 70/30 was a complete shock to me. The Obama halo effect is waaaaaaay bigger than I thought. But at the same time people who picked Biden were more likely to switch.
Finally the "Harris history as a prosecutor" comments by the focus group were interesting.
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Oh indeed yes. I've made the assumption that they are being truthful but have edited down their comments for maximum effect. Still, I feel there is useful info there
Couldn't you put that against every day? I'm so sick of hearing the two stories on this. One where it reports tough but constructive talks with much to do, the other how EU negotiators with the patience of saints were stunned as the British went over things they just wont accept and let's throw in a 'we don't know what they want' for good measure.
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
Perhaps the suffering induced by getting these updates is the point.
But it isn't those refusing to make a decision suffering its us.
Far be it from me to take pleasure in the suffering of others, but I'm sure others less principled may not be entirely unhappy about the extremely repetitive cycle of Brexiteers' pitiful hopes and dashed expectations.
Can't blame you. Were you less principled of course
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Work and homes together? People need both those things they sound fantastic
Frederick John Robinson, Viscount Goderich, apparently. He was PM for a few months after Canning.
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Oh indeed yes. I've made the assumption that they are being truthful but have edited down their comments for maximum effect. Still, I feel there is useful info there
The interesting game out of this is, who are they working for?
I guess it's Harris? No point in denying the fact that everyone loves Biden since all the polls are showing it, but they get to mention Anita Hill, and set up Harris as the alternative choice.
Meanwhile you get to make it clear to everybody that the stuff about how she took money off Steve Mnuchin and let off his shady bank, and got an innocent man kept in jail on a technicality, and the clip of her laughing about threatening to jail parents of kids who skip school, have absolutely no cut-through with the voters, none whatsoever, so you're totally wasting your time bringing it up...
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
I'd have thought 30 Lab rebels will get it close enough that MV3 will pass (post-extension?).
I'm not sure why anyone is terribly interested in this negotiation. It's not going to produce anything meaningful. The only question is whether the Brexit extremists are going to allow themselves to be persuaded that it has. The signs are not good for the Prime Minister.
If we ask for an extension, in deciding whether to give us one isn't the EU likely to be influenced by how the negotiations have gone so far?
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Oh indeed yes. I've made the assumption that they are being truthful but have edited down their comments for maximum effect. Still, I feel there is useful info there
The interesting game out of this is, who are they working for?
I guess it's Harris? No point in denying the fact that everyone loves Biden since all the polls are showing it, but they get to mention Anita Hill, and set up Harris as the alternative choice.
Meanwhile you get to make it clear to everybody that the stuff about how she took money off Steve Mnuchin and let off his shady bank, and got an innocent man kept in jail on a technicality, and the clip of her laughing about threatening to jail parents of kids who skip school, have absolutely no cut-through with the voters, none whatsoever, so you're totally wasting your time bringing it up...
I'm not sure why anyone is terribly interested in this negotiation. It's not going to produce anything meaningful. The only question is whether the Brexit extremists are going to allow themselves to be persuaded that it has. The signs are not good for the Prime Minister.
If we ask for an extension, in deciding whether to give us one isn't the EU likely to be influenced by how the negotiations have gone so far?
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
I'd have thought 30 Lab rebels will get it close enough that MV3 will pass (post-extension?).
It woud have a certain delicious irony if the breakdown of the power of Labour whips (because of the threat of departure to the TIGs) means that enough Labour MPs feel able vote with impunity to ensure May's Deal happens. Thereby frustrating the raison d'etre of the TIGs.....
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
I'm not sure why anyone is terribly interested in this negotiation. It's not going to produce anything meaningful. The only question is whether the Brexit extremists are going to allow themselves to be persuaded that it has. The signs are not good for the Prime Minister.
If we ask for an extension, in deciding whether to give us one isn't the EU likely to be influenced by how the negotiations have gone so far?
That view was surely formed long ago.
You don't happen to know what they decided, do you?
Dilemma looming for Mrs May when her deal is rejected next week. Does she whip for or against no-deal or allow a free vote? I think the latter so that she can stay being all things to all men (btw that includes women).
She may allow a free vote as preferable to large numbers of resignations, but I think her first instinct will be to whip for no deal, as she has previously whipped against amendments that reject no deal (e.g.the Spelman amendment).
She may believe that she can spin a tale involving more negotiations culminating at the EU summit on March 21st to convince anti no deal ministers to sit on their hands again.
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
I'd have thought 30 Lab rebels will get it close enough that MV3 will pass (post-extension?).
It woud have a certain delicious irony if the breakdown of the power of Labour whips (because of the threat of departure to the TIGs) means that enough Labour MPs feel able vote with impunity to ensure May's Deal happens. Thereby frustrating the raison d'etre of the TIGs.....
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
Perhaps. Antisemitism isn't the biggest issue in America it is racism based on skin colour etc ... I'd be surprised if 30% of that is due to bots.
Similarly in UK there is sufficient genuine antisemitism on the far left to not need so many bots.
Dilemma looming for Mrs May when her deal is rejected next week. Does she whip for or against no-deal or allow a free vote? I think the latter so that she can stay being all things to all men (btw that includes women).
She may allow a free vote as preferable to large numbers of resignations, but I think her first instinct will be to whip for no deal, as she has previously whipped against amendments that reject no deal (e.g.the Spelman amendment).
She may believe that she can spin a tale involving more negotiations culminating at the EU summit on March 21st to convince anti no deal ministers to sit on their hands again.
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
What great job satisfaction there must be, sat in Moscow, wondering whose reputation you can spend today trashing....
Very Russian. Reminds me of the story of the Russian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, where the "ask the audience" choice was fraught - because the audience enjoyed seeing people lose....
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
I'd have thought 30 Lab rebels will get it close enough that MV3 will pass (post-extension?).
It woud have a certain delicious irony if the breakdown of the power of Labour whips (because of the threat of departure to the TIGs) means that enough Labour MPs feel able vote with impunity to ensure May's Deal happens. Thereby frustrating the raison d'etre of the TIGs.....
and with the Squeaker's casting vote.
Speaker Dennison's rule is the Speaker has to vote against the Deal in the final reading. The Squeaker if he were to break precedent would do so to side with extremists like Soubry and not the PM.
It woud have a certain delicious irony if the breakdown of the power of Labour whips (because of the threat of departure to the TIGs) means that enough Labour MPs feel able vote with impunity to ensure May's Deal happens. Thereby frustrating the raison d'etre of the TIGs.....
The raison d'etre of the TIGs is to shake up politics.
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Oh indeed yes. I've made the assumption that they are being truthful but have edited down their comments for maximum effect. Still, I feel there is useful info there
The interesting game out of this is, who are they working for?
I guess it's Harris? No point in denying the fact that everyone loves Biden since all the polls are showing it, but they get to mention Anita Hill, and set up Harris as the alternative choice.
Meanwhile you get to make it clear to everybody that the stuff about how she took money off Steve Mnuchin and let off his shady bank, and got an innocent man kept in jail on a technicality, and the clip of her laughing about threatening to jail parents of kids who skip school, have absolutely no cut-through with the voters, none whatsoever, so you're totally wasting your time bringing it up...
You need a supersized pinch of salt when dealing with somebody apparently employed by one of the campaigns, tweeting out, with the permission of the candidate, their selection of 3 or 4 comments, out of a possible selection of 1000s.
Oh indeed yes. I've made the assumption that they are being truthful but have edited down their comments for maximum effect. Still, I feel there is useful info there
The interesting game out of this is, who are they working for?
I guess it's Harris? No point in denying the fact that everyone loves Biden since all the polls are showing it, but they get to mention Anita Hill, and set up Harris as the alternative choice.
Meanwhile you get to make it clear to everybody that the stuff about how she took money off Steve Mnuchin and let off his shady bank, and got an innocent man kept in jail on a technicality, and the clip of her laughing about threatening to jail parents of kids who skip school, have absolutely no cut-through with the voters, none whatsoever, so you're totally wasting your time bringing it up...
That was my initial thought but like I say everybody knows that - it's what the polling everywhere is showing, and it still seems like there's a decent chance he's not going to run.
I really, really hope that this new group put good and fair procedures and rules in place - and as Ms Free would add - culture - to prevent the messes the other parties have got into. Otherwise Chuka's words will sound a little hollow.
Sadly, with everything else they need to be doing to become a serious party, this sort of thing will not get the priority it requires.
It woud have a certain delicious irony if the breakdown of the power of Labour whips (because of the threat of departure to the TIGs) means that enough Labour MPs feel able vote with impunity to ensure May's Deal happens. Thereby frustrating the raison d'etre of the TIGs.....
The raison d'etre of the TIGs is to shake up politics.
May's deal going through looks like a solid win
Brexit going ahead. No "people's vote". May getting what she wants. Corbyn getting what he wants.
Break the mould on the top of that WI jam, Anna....
Like Obama against Clinton at the stage of the contest ?
What's very clear is that this time around Democrats are only going to pick a candidate they think can beat Trump. That's the hurdle - only after that's cleared will they pick their favourite. Warren has plenty of time (and money) to demonstrate that she can, but it is definitely an advantage for the better known names at the start (ie Biden and Sanders). They have their own disadvantages, though.
Obama won Iowa and was polling 25 to 30% at this stage, far more than Harris is on.
It is also clear the Democrats race will come down to a progressive e.g. Warren and Sanders v a more centrist candidate e.g. Biden and to a lesser extent Harris, if Harris is losing African American women in the South who voted for Obama and Hillary to Biden she has a problem
It's only one group and of a specific type (African American women from South carolina) but I found the results both suprising and unsurprising. The Warren comments, calling here unpresidential but also completely dismissing the Native American stuff as a non factor completely aligned with what I'd been reading amongst Dems at large.
Biden over Harris 70/30 was a complete shock to me. The Obama halo effect is waaaaaaay bigger than I thought. But at the same time people who picked Biden were more likely to switch.
Finally the "Harris history as a prosecutor" comments by the focus group were interesting.
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
I'd have thought 30 Lab rebels will get it close enough that MV3 will pass (post-extension?).
Yes once most of the ERG realise the alternative is extension of Article 50 and potential Deal v Remain EUref2
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
Perhaps. Antisemitism isn't the biggest issue in America it is racism based on skin colour etc ... I'd be surprised if 30% of that is due to bots.
Similarly in UK there is sufficient genuine antisemitism on the far left to not need so many bots.
Bots can retweet antisemitic (or anti-Islamic or anti-Brexit or whatever) content thus greatly magnifying it. Trolls can create the content, whether British or Russian trolls. Even more worrying is that AI chatbots can now create it themselves. And hey, who is checking that all of this abuse of Jewish MPs is actually coming from Corbanistas, let alone Labour members?Russia may have wrecked both our government and opposition.
And of course, not only are trolls using social media but so are our political parties: first the Conservatives, then Labour.
May would really be playing with fire if she tries to whip the vote either way next week .
If she whips for no deal she’s essentially saying that’s now government policy. If she whips against then the ERG will implode .
The only way to keep a semblance of order is to allow a free vote .
If she doesn't whip the vote she is conceding that her government no longer has a Brexit policy. It would be more humiliating to her than whipping the vote and losing it.
My median assumption is that she'll whip all three votes - for the deal, for the option of no deal and against an extension - and lose the first two, but win the third. Then she goes to the EU summit on March 21st looking for a miracle/charity, and it's all set-up for a final vote on the deal on March 26th? 27th?
Obviously, I hope I'm wrong and it doesn't come to that.
Sort of sidepoint but the whole sharia law thing is a bit of a misnomer, we are not under sharia law anywhere in the UK anymore than we are Jewish law, if you want to ignore every religious law (in any religion) you can do so and are free from legal punishment as long as you stick within British law.
My understanding is Muslims or Jewish people (possibly other religions as well these are the two I've heard of) can settle disputes under their own law if they wish as long as it doesn't go against British law but they can also just stick with British law if they want.
Some idiots claiming they are going around enforcing sharia law in a neighbourhood have no more official claim than some white thugs going around enforcing a 'natives' only policy.
That is with less than 10% of the population Muslim, if we ever get close to 50% Muslim it might be a different story
That only really works if 100% of Muslims wanted Sharia law as the official law of the land to replace British law.
Can't say I know the statistics of British Muslims (only ones who can vote count) who would want that but you'd probably need to be closer to the country being 100% Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you wouldn't actually get a majority for it.
Many parts of the country e.g. Bradford and Slough and Bethnal Green would be close to 100% Muslim if the country was around 50% Muslim
For the country to be become 50% Muslim, you'd need millions of conversions among the white population. We probably would have sharia law, as converts are zealous.
I really, really hope that this new group put good and fair procedures and rules in place - and as Ms Free would add - culture - to prevent the messes the other parties have got into. Otherwise Chuka's words will sound a little hollow.
Sadly, with everything else they need to be doing to become a serious party, this sort of thing will not get the priority it requires.
They would be mad not to have the strongest possible procedures on this from day one.
No doubt SWP are already sending in their deep sleepers as we type.
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
Perhaps. Antisemitism isn't the biggest issue in America it is racism based on skin colour etc ... I'd be surprised if 30% of that is due to bots.
Similarly in UK there is sufficient genuine antisemitism on the far left to not need so many bots.
Bots can retweet antisemitic (or anti-Islamic or anti-Brexit or whatever) content thus greatly magnifying it. Trolls can create the content, whether British or Russian trolls. Even more worrying is that AI chatbots can now create it themselves. And hey, who is checking that all of this abuse of Jewish MPs is actually coming from Corbanistas, let alone Labour members?Russia may have wrecked both our government and opposition.
And of course, not only are trolls using social media but so are our political parties: first the Conservatives, then Labour.
"And hey, who is checking that all of this abuse of Jewish MPs is actually coming from Corbanistas, let alone Labour members?"
That's fairly irrelevant, as Labour's problems are not stemming from comments from unknown people: the comments are coming from people well known within the movement, including from the very top.
Bots and trolls may be inflaming the situation, but if so, it's because the deniers and excusers of anti-Semitism within the party fall for it - every single time.
Mr. Me, trying to alter a judicial process to hit targets for prosecution is an alarming approach.
People sometimes forget that justice is for those accused as well as those accusing.
There is definitely a problem with rape prosecutions which means that it's a crime that is being committed with impunity. I tend to think that the problem is largely a cultural problem, requiring a cultural solution, rather than a process problem requiring a process solution.
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
I think you are overestimating Labour's capabilities a bit there. They do have a large membership, but not enough to run covert operations to undermine other parties.
Their response to the disappointing fall in rape prosecutions is to propose to do away with juries in rape trials.
Juries do what they are directed to do - namely convict only if they are satisfied that the Defendant is guilty. That's a high hurdle to jump. What juries don't do is simply acquit a rapist, because they think the complainant looked a bit slutty, or was not a virgin.
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
Labour, Tories and not forgetting our Russian friends. Did you see that report I posted the other day showing nearly a third of American antisemitic traffic is due to bots? I expect the same is true here.
Perhaps. Antisemitism isn't the biggest issue in America it is racism based on skin colour etc ... I'd be surprised if 30% of that is due to bots.
Similarly in UK there is sufficient genuine antisemitism on the far left to not need so many bots.
Bots can retweet antisemitic (or anti-Islamic or anti-Brexit or whatever) content thus greatly magnifying it. Trolls can create the content, whether British or Russian trolls. Even more worrying is that AI chatbots can now create it themselves. And hey, who is checking that all of this abuse of Jewish MPs is actually coming from Corbanistas, let alone Labour members?Russia may have wrecked both our government and opposition.
And of course, not only are trolls using social media but so are our political parties: first the Conservatives, then Labour.
"And hey, who is checking that all of this abuse of Jewish MPs is actually coming from Corbanistas, let alone Labour members?"
That's fairly irrelevant, as Labour's problems are not stemming from comments from unknown people: the comments are coming from people well known within the movement, including from the very top.
Bots and trolls may be inflaming the situation, but if so, it's because the deniers and excusers of anti-Semitism within the party fall for it - every single time.
Precisely. The issue isn't that UnknownTweeter3567 has Tweeted or Retweeted something antisemitic. It is that MPs, candidates, party members, momentum members etc are posting and retweeting etc it ... or saying it on video.
Mr. Me, trying to alter a judicial process to hit targets for prosecution is an alarming approach.
People sometimes forget that justice is for those accused as well as those accusing.
There is definitely a problem with rape prosecutions which means that it's a crime that is being committed with impunity. I tend to think that the problem is largely a cultural problem, requiring a cultural solution, rather than a process problem requiring a process solution.
Most crimes get committed with impunity. The U.K. actually jails more rapists than any other European country.
Mr. Me, it may be largely due to the nature of the crime itself (typically just two people, in private).
Of course, there might have been more prosecutions in the past had the authorities not been so concerned with cultural sensitivities (in much the same way there's concern about knife crime yet stop-and-search is seen as horrendous).
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
I think you are overestimating Labour's capabilities a bit there. They do have a large membership, but not enough to run covert operations to undermine other parties.
Lord Derby isn't in the wikipedia list of Grey's Cabinet. Has wiki got it wrong?
May would really be playing with fire if she tries to whip the vote either way next week .
If she whips for no deal she’s essentially saying that’s now government policy. If she whips against then the ERG will implode .
The only way to keep a semblance of order is to allow a free vote .
She has to whip. The most important vote of her entire career, and she doesn't care which way people vote?
It’s possible MPs could amend the no deal option to include the extension in one vote . Thereby avoiding that second vote . Not sure why May needs to spread these votes over three days . Clearly if people vote against no deal then given the timeframes they realize you’d need an extension . I can’t see a way May can whip for no deal . Effectively she’d be saying her government is endorsing a policy that her own government has concluded would be very harmful on the country and would be a catastrophe for Northern Ireland . She will then be seen as breaking the GFA and I’d expect a host of resignations and the Tories to implode .
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
I think you are overestimating Labour's capabilities a bit there. They do have a large membership, but not enough to run covert operations to undermine other parties.
Lord Derby isn't in the wikipedia list of Grey's Cabinet. Has wiki got it wrong?
Obviously this is bollox but like all of Williamson's posturings its bollox designed to impress Conservative members.
But does it actually work ?
Are Conservative members actually impressed by what Williamson says ?
Is this the worst Cabinet since the 19th century?
On behalf of the 19th Century ... Earl Grey's Cabinet contained four future prime ministers which is probably some sort of record, passed the Great Reform Act, restricted child labour and abolished slavery. We won't be drinking Mrs May tea a hundred years from now.
I get Palmerston, Melbourne and (eventually) Russell. Who was the fourth?
You've forgotten however that they also introduced workhouses.
Lord Derby.
Confession time: I'd just read it in Gimson's Prime Ministers, which is a sort of modern take on the old Ladybird Kings & Queens books (as iirc was once mooted on here many years ago).
I do hope that before TIG allow new members, they have set up a vetting service that would make MI5 blush.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
If I were Labour, I'd be infiltrating the hell out of them, with mutliple flavours of "phobes" to make maximum mischief....
I think you are overestimating Labour's capabilities a bit there. They do have a large membership, but not enough to run covert operations to undermine other parties.
Lord Derby isn't in the wikipedia list of Grey's Cabinet. Has wiki got it wrong?
He was known as Edward Stanley before he became the Earl of Derby and Wiki says he joined the Cabinet in 1831.
The Tiggers are the only option these days for anyone sane and reasonable.
That may be the case at some point but they need to register as a party and produce domestic policies that appeal to many who are tired and dispirited with the hard right and left in our main parties
I am weary of the conflict in politics and the absolute incompetence of our mps. No deal brexit has to be stopped and my hope is that if TM deal falls a customs union becomes the HOC pathway out of this nightmare, thereby leaving the EU, but taking the least damaging option, though remaining is the best option
A lot will depend on TM willingness to break her red lines and due to her stubborn nature she may not, but of course if ERG lose her deal she will no doubt feel no loyality to them
She is wrong on knife crime and police numbers and is wrong to prevent police pay rises. However, today's Sky poll has the conservatives ahead of labour over dealing with knife crime by 31%/21%
She heads a government with a lost mandate and cannot even pass day to day legislation. This cannot continue and I hope she decides to stand down shortly, hands over to a new successor, and the new PM seeks a mandate to govern at the time before TIG become established and Corbyn is on the ropes over anti semitism and his communist cabal
Comments
As someone noted, it wouldn't be written down if true anyway. I think people are able to remember 'I will betray everyone'.
The chances of ministerial resignations must be high whatever she does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xnInpqMiG4
To give some context, this is insanely far away, and is tricky because the asteroid's gravity is so low a person could probably jump up and reach escape velocity.
And in similar news; an Israeli private moon lander is on its way to the Moon
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/05/israels-first-moon-mission-spacecraft-beresheet-sends-back-selfie
Would we suffer in any way if we didn't get these updates? All they seem to achieve is shoring up political positions based on third hand accounts of what went on.
As May pointed out months ago (but is trying to ignore herself) there isn't scope for any big changes. And obsessing over the precise intricacies of small groups of words and obsessively over interpreting them isn't going to convince many.
Particularly as the more we try to sell it as significant the EU has to sell it as not, which gives more reason not to think it worth it to the erg and co
Looks like the Deal should edge up to around 250 or so, maybe more.
If that is more than No Deal then gets and the Kyle amendment gets around 300 votes and the Commons votes to extend Article 50 we are heading to a choice between the latter
What's very clear is that this time around Democrats are only going to pick a candidate they think can beat Trump. That's the hurdle - only after that's cleared will they pick their favourite.
Warren has plenty of time (and money) to demonstrate that she can, but it is definitely an advantage for the better known names at the start (ie Biden and Sanders). They have their own disadvantages, though.
Biden over Harris 70/30 was a complete shock to me. The Obama halo effect is waaaaaaay bigger than I thought. But at the same time people who picked Biden were more likely to switch.
Finally the "Harris history as a prosecutor"
comments by the focus group were interesting.
Otherwise the fairly obvious is going to happen...
You a fan of Justin, Evan and Jonathan by any chance?
I guess it's Harris? No point in denying the fact that everyone loves Biden since all the polls are showing it, but they get to mention Anita Hill, and set up Harris as the alternative choice.
Meanwhile you get to make it clear to everybody that the stuff about how she took money off Steve Mnuchin and let off his shady bank, and got an innocent man kept in jail on a technicality, and the clip of her laughing about threatening to jail parents of kids who skip school, have absolutely no cut-through with the voters, none whatsoever, so you're totally wasting your time bringing it up...
https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/status/1103001918652276736
She may believe that she can spin a tale involving more negotiations culminating at the EU summit on March 21st to convince anti no deal ministers to sit on their hands again.
Similarly in UK there is sufficient genuine antisemitism on the far left to not need so many bots.
(edit - whip for no deal, that is)
Very Russian. Reminds me of the story of the Russian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, where the "ask the audience" choice was fraught - because the audience enjoyed seeing people lose....
May's deal going through looks like a solid win
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/06/prosecution-rate-in-england-and-wales-falls-to-five-year-low
Their response to the disappointing fall in rape prosecutions is to propose to do away with juries in rape trials.
If she whips for no deal she’s essentially saying that’s now government policy. If she whips against then the ERG will implode .
The only way to keep a semblance of order is to allow a free vote .
Sadly, with everything else they need to be doing to become a serious party, this sort of thing will not get the priority it requires.
Break the mould on the top of that WI jam, Anna....
It is also clear the Democrats race will come down to a progressive e.g. Warren and Sanders v a more centrist candidate e.g. Biden and to a lesser extent Harris, if Harris is losing African American women in the South who voted for Obama and Hillary to Biden she has a problem
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1103218246013124608
People sometimes forget that justice is for those accused as well as those accusing.
And of course, not only are trolls using social media but so are our political parties: first the Conservatives, then Labour.
My median assumption is that she'll whip all three votes - for the deal, for the option of no deal and against an extension - and lose the first two, but win the third. Then she goes to the EU summit on March 21st looking for a miracle/charity, and it's all set-up for a final vote on the deal on March 26th? 27th?
Obviously, I hope I'm wrong and it doesn't come to that.
No doubt SWP are already sending in their deep sleepers as we type.
That's fairly irrelevant, as Labour's problems are not stemming from comments from unknown people: the comments are coming from people well known within the movement, including from the very top.
Bots and trolls may be inflaming the situation, but if so, it's because the deniers and excusers of anti-Semitism within the party fall for it - every single time.
https://twitter.com/gabrielsherman/status/1102547613465874432
Of course, there might have been more prosecutions in the past had the authorities not been so concerned with cultural sensitivities (in much the same way there's concern about knife crime yet stop-and-search is seen as horrendous).
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2016/06/01/lord-derby/
I am weary of the conflict in politics and the absolute incompetence of our mps. No deal brexit has to be stopped and my hope is that if TM deal falls a customs union becomes the HOC pathway out of this nightmare, thereby leaving the EU, but taking the least damaging option, though remaining is the best option
A lot will depend on TM willingness to break her red lines and due to her stubborn nature she may not, but of course if ERG lose her deal she will no doubt feel no loyality to them
She is wrong on knife crime and police numbers and is wrong to prevent police pay rises. However, today's Sky poll has the conservatives ahead of labour over dealing with knife crime by 31%/21%
She heads a government with a lost mandate and cannot even pass day to day legislation. This cannot continue and I hope she decides to stand down shortly, hands over to a new successor, and the new PM seeks a mandate to govern at the time before TIG become established and Corbyn is on the ropes over anti semitism and his communist cabal