Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
Ban, close down, hound out anything, anyone, any entity that disagrees with Jezza and his inner circle. BBC, national newspapers, house of lords, police authorities, bank of england independence, OBR, National Stats agency, independent local government agencies and authorities etc etc.
A unique national and constitutional catastrophe is racing towards us.
Don't worry, rb, I'm sure the sheer force of your hysteria will hold back the ocean
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Further, it appears not to have been peer-reviewed, and has not been published in any reputable journal.
The website states: “Our general argument is that populism is best understood as a combination of individual and contextual issues (“demand side”) and the availability of successful leaders (“supply side”).”
Is that insight really what 235,386 euros buys you?
So Cox brought 2 proposals and the EU brought er.. none.
Bad faith ..
Precisely. And we're supposed to bind ourselves in perpetuity on the vague promise that it won't really be in perpetuity because ... er well we don't know yet?
Judge people on what they do, not what they say. What the EU have done is made it clear they want us in the backstop and will move heaven and earth to make sure its the only outcome.
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
You understand that the Guardian article isn't their paper, right? It's an article about the paper?
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
A single datum does not necessarily have a distribution. Consider the question "what is 2+2 in decimal arithmetic?" Did you mean to type "data"?
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers ...
Is he trying to placate the Lib Dems by driving TIG's poll ratings down below theirs?
On one level I feel bad for Chuka. Centrists still seem to believe that they have a big, broad consensus on their side and that if only a centrist party other than the Lib Dems would come along, voters will flock to them and everything will be nice and stable and cordial again. When TIG drops like a stone, they're not going to accept that they were wrong, they're going to look for a scapegoat, just like they keep doing with the Lib Dems.
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
What's being overlooked is that Rudd was offering moral support to a political opponent and got slated for it by said political opponent.
People should be willing to take comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
"Benny (Plural: Bennies) A nickname given to people living on the Falkland Islands. During the Falklands War, British troops noticed the similarities of many of the Falklands Islanders, to a Character from a British soap opera, ('Crossroads')
In this soap opera, Benny was a simple (mentally challenged) odd job man, known for wearing old knitted jumpers and a woolly bobble hat.
Military top brass stopped the soldiers calling the Islanders Bennies, so the soldiers started calling the Islanders 'Stills' (meaning, 'still Bennies')"
I remember when I published an article many years ago. I was young and had spent a lot of time in acquiring, cleaning, analysing and presenting the data, paying careful attention to use of colour and units. Then when it was published the typesetter had neglected to label the axes (they were in the copy I sent to the editor). I got so much flack for that it isn't true. It isn't the massive flaw you think it is.
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
You understand that the Guardian article isn't their paper, right? It's an article about the paper?
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
You understand that the Guardian article isn't their paper, right? It's an article about the paper?
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
What's being overlooked is that Rudd was offering moral support to a political opponent and got slated for it by said political opponent.
People should be willing to take comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
Indeed. Given our permaoffended Twitter world, I am quite saddened. It was William Burroughs who said that (I paraphrase) all the world's problems can be tracked back to people messing in other people's lives.
I remember when I published an article many years ago. I was young and had spent a lot of time in acquiring, cleaning, analysing and presenting the data, paying careful attention to use of colour and units. Then when it was published the typesetter had neglected to label the axes (they were in the copy I sent to the editor). I got so much flack for that it isn't true. It isn't the massive flaw you think it is.
So, do tell me how I measure populism?
Also, as a statistician, do you not think the scatter of datapoints in their first graph is rather curious?
Actually, I’d give you flak. It is a serious blunder not to have axes labels.
But, a still more serious blunder is not to have error bars on the data.
Without error bars, it is impossible to say whether the claimed correlation is meaningful.
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
I remember when I published an article many years ago. I was young and had spent a lot of time in acquiring, cleaning, analysing and presenting the data, paying careful attention to use of colour and units. Then when it was published the typesetter had neglected to label the axes (they were in the copy I sent to the editor). I got so much flack for that it isn't true. It isn't the massive flaw you think it is.
So, do tell me how I measure populism?
Also, as a statistician, do you not think the scatter of datapoints in their first graph is rather curious?
Actually, I’d give you flak. It is a serious blunder not to have axes labels.
But, a still more serious blunder is not to have error bars on the data.
Without error bars, it is impossible to say whether the claimed correlation is meaningful.
I don't know. I haven't looked. I though your statement that all datums must have an error bar was wrong and gave an example.
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
You understand that the Guardian article isn't their paper, right? It's an article about the paper?
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
"Benny (Plural: Bennies) A nickname given to people living on the Falkland Islands. During the Falklands War, British troops noticed the similarities of many of the Falklands Islanders, to a Character from a British soap opera, ('Crossroads')
In this soap opera, Benny was a simple (mentally challenged) odd job man, known for wearing old knitted jumpers and a woolly bobble hat.
Military top brass stopped the soldiers calling the Islanders Bennies, so the soldiers started calling the Islanders 'Stills' (meaning, 'still Bennies')"
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
What's being overlooked is that Rudd was offering moral support to a political opponent and got slated for it by said political opponent.
People should be willing to take comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
So Cox brought 2 proposals and the EU brought er.. none.
Bad faith ..
Precisely. And we're supposed to bind ourselves in perpetuity on the vague promise that it won't really be in perpetuity because ... er well we don't know yet?
Judge people on what they do, not what they say. What the EU have done is made it clear they want us in the backstop and will move heaven and earth to make sure its the only outcome.
That’ll be the backstop we proposed in the first place, will it?
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
They are not precedents for the EU, and in any case the EU has already outlasted the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
As an advocate of the multinational state called UK, it's bizarre for you to choose examples of historical European multinational states to argue against the EU.
Do Leavers really have sleepless nights over the backstop . And before the referendum did they have panic attacks over whether the UK should have its own trade deals !
All of a sudden some Leavers will almost need to be hospitalized if heaven forbid the UK stays in a Customs Union .
People have just wedded themselves to the pure Brexit pushed by the ERG , it’s become like a proxy religion . Any divergence from that path is seen as heresy .
Half the country seems to have lost the plot and Remainers can only look on horrified as the UK turns into an ungovernable mess falling apart with the country never more divided.
Staying in 'The' Customs Union permanently is not possible as, unlike the Single Market, it is an integral part of the EU and tied up with the institutions and treaties that underpin the EU.
The alternative is staying in 'A' Customs Union but that is a complete nightmare as it means we would be like Turkey; forced to accept tariff free imports from any 3rd Party country that had a trade deal with the EU but unable to export on the same basis.
As I have mentioned before this is why Turkey said that if the EU:US Trade deal had gone through they would have had to leave the Customs Union they had with the EU. They simply couldn't have afforded to stay in.
Good job they can leave the Customs Union unilaterally then isn't it.
Remind us how we leave the backstop unilaterally? And if the EU say the only way to leave the backstop is to sign a Turkish-style Customs Union but with no unilateral exit because that'd risk an Irish border . . . then what?
I am not OK with handing over control of our decision making to a third party without us having a way to revoke that.
The good faith clause - it has a specific meaning in contract law
Just how significant is that result? Just look at the scatter plot further down the article!
Those scatter plots are amazing .... Voodoo Statistics with the Chicken Entrails and Ceremonial Drums.
It is amazing that someone funded this “research” to the tune of 235,386 euros.
Could you explain what's wrong with their statistics?
Well, what is the horizontal axis? What is the scale and unit of “populism”? Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
You understand that the Guardian article isn't their paper, right? It's an article about the paper?
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
The Holy Roman Empire didn't fail per se. From the crowning of Charlemagne to its disbandment by Napoleon it lasted over a thousand years. With troubles in that time of course as befits the era, but I wouldn't view that as failure.
If the EU lasts a thousand years it will have done well.
Do Leavers really have sleepless nights over the backstop . And before the referendum did they have panic attacks over whether the UK should have its own trade deals !
All of a sudden some Leavers will almost need to be hospitalized if heaven forbid the UK stays in a Customs Union .
People have just wedded themselves to the pure Brexit pushed by the ERG , it’s become like a proxy religion . Any divergence from that path is seen as heresy .
Half the country seems to have lost the plot and Remainers can only look on horrified as the UK turns into an ungovernable mess falling apart with the country never more divided.
Staying in 'The' Customs Union permanently is not possible as, unlike the Single Market, it is an integral part of the EU and tied up with the institutions and treaties that underpin the EU.
The alternative is staying in 'A' Customs Union but that is a complete nightmare as it means we would be like Turkey; forced to accept tariff free imports from any 3rd Party country that had a trade deal with the EU but unable to export on the same basis.
As I have mentioned before this is why Turkey said that if the EU:US Trade deal had gone through they would have had to leave the Customs Union they had with the EU. They simply couldn't have afforded to stay in.
Good job they can leave the Customs Union unilaterally then isn't it.
Remind us how we leave the backstop unilaterally? And if the EU say the only way to leave the backstop is to sign a Turkish-style Customs Union but with no unilateral exit because that'd risk an Irish border . . . then what?
I am not OK with handing over control of our decision making to a third party without us having a way to revoke that.
The good faith clause - it has a specific meaning in contract law
In the US more than England I thought? Not sure how we're supposed to uphold it internationally.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
The Holy Roman Empire didn't fail per se. From the crowning of Charlemagne to its disbandment by Napoleon it lasted over a thousand years. With troubles in that time of course as befits the era, but I wouldn't view that as failure.
If the EU lasts a thousand years it will have done well.
Well longevity is not the only measure of success. The Byzantine Empire survived for a long time after the fall of Rome, longer than the Roman Empire had previously existed, but there's little doubt that the earlier Empire was the more dynamic and had the most lasting influence on later people.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Oh dear. No.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
Off topic: Never mind pineapple on pizza - I've just had a burger topped with a hash brown. Just the job!
Micky D's Bacon Big Mac (which is bacon on a ... well, it's in the name) is surprisingly good, even (or especially) if you did not like the classic Big Mac.
I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
My understanding is that it is quite offensive, and in America is extremely so. I'm just confused it was even in then recesses of Amber Rudd's mind - it's surely never been widely used in the UK even pejoratively?
It has never been particularly pejorative in the UK, but used to be a common term (in fact, IIRC it was the preferred term thirty or forty years ago, the equivalent of the politically correct term before political correctness was invented).
I think its the moron/retarded/special needs problem. A word is considered bad, a new word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, children use that new word as a slur in the playground, the children grow up, the new word is now considered bad, a newer word is brought in as a kindly euphemism, and we go round again. Say 20 years from peak to peak. Older people find this difficult to work with, and it's made worse by younger people with very short memories who think mores now were mores then.
"Benny (Plural: Bennies) A nickname given to people living on the Falkland Islands. During the Falklands War, British troops noticed the similarities of many of the Falklands Islanders, to a Character from a British soap opera, ('Crossroads')
In this soap opera, Benny was a simple (mentally challenged) odd job man, known for wearing old knitted jumpers and a woolly bobble hat.
Military top brass stopped the soldiers calling the Islanders Bennies, so the soldiers started calling the Islanders 'Stills' (meaning, 'still Bennies')"
In the old days I used to work for Morgan Grenfell and to maintain the partnership ethos we used to answer the phone with the firm’s name not ours.
When we were bought by Deutsche Bank a strict order came from Frankfurt that we were now to use “Deutsche Morgan Grenfell”
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
Why not build 2 new chambers in different cities, and have everyone up-sticks and move between the two every month? I know that sounds totally ridiculous, and no sane person would ever consider it, but our friends in Brussels/Strasbourg appear to think otherwise...
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Oh dear. No.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
They are not precedents for the EU, and in any case the EU has already outlasted the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
As an advocate of the multinational state called UK, it's bizarre for you to choose examples of historical European multinational states to argue against the EU.
There is a single demos in the U.K. which there isn’t in the EU. And if one part of the UK should decide it wanted to be separate then - by definition - there wouldn’t be a demos and separation should be facilitated by both sides
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Oh dear. No.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
Well, that's a bit like saying that the British Empire was formed by mutual agreement between England and Scotland. What about all the bits in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that weren't Austrian or Hungarian?
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Neither was particularly which is why I chose them.
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Oh dear. No.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Neither was particularly which is why I chose them.
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
I think it's pretty fair to say that force of arms was a very important factor in the existence and survival of both Empires.
It's been a few decades since the Treaty of Rome and the EU does not even have an army yet. There really is a marked difference which suggests the EU has a greater chance of success.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Neither was particularly which is why I chose them.
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
I think it's pretty fair to say that force of arms was a very important factor in the existence and survival of both Empires.
It's been a few decades since the Treaty of Rome and the EU does not even have an army yet. There really is a marked difference which suggests the EU has a greater chance of success.
Chuka Umunna says TIG would introduce PR, have national service for all school leavers and turn Parliament into a museum and build a new Chamber amongst other policies as well as stand candidates in every seat at the next general election
Interesting - though not surprising- news from the Guardian: 'Nicola Sturgeon has ruled out holding an unofficial Scottish independence referendum, after her deputy suggested she could call one without legal approval.' I always knew she had more sense than to contemplate such a course.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Oh dear. No.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't formed until 1867. It was formed by mutual agreement of The two Kingdoms not by conquest.
But Hungary was essentially under brutal martial law for some years after 1848. The real reason for the ,,Ausgleich'' was Austrian defeats against Prussia and Italy in 1866 and the damage to Habsburg finances that ensued.
As a consequence of the Second Italian War of Independence and the Austro-Prussian War, the Habsburg Empire was on the verge of collapse in 1866, as these wars caused monumental state debt and a financial crisis.[30] The Habsburgs were forced to reconcile with Hungary, to save their empire and dynasty. The Habsburgs and part of the Hungarian political elite arranged the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The Compromise was arranged and legitimated by a very small part of the Hungarian society (suffrage was very limited: less than 8 percent of the population had voting rights), and was seen by a very large part of the population as betrayal of the Hungarian cause and the heritage of the 1848-49 War of Independence. This caused deep and lasting cracks in Hungarian society.[31]
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Neither was particularly which is why I chose them.
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
I think it's pretty fair to say that force of arms was a very important factor in the existence and survival of both Empires.
It's been a few decades since the Treaty of Rome and the EU does not even have an army yet. There really is a marked difference which suggests the EU has a greater chance of success.
So you were wrong then?
No, I don't think so. There was definitely lots of conquest. I was trying to give you a way to bank down gracefully and to concentrate on the main point - which is that the two Empires are not good models for the EU because the latter is a voluntary association that states apply to join, and the Empires were not.
Some shit actually happening, joblessness actually occurring etc might be a start.
Where the fuck have you been?
Go talk to Nissan and Honda workers about "some shit actually happening"...
ICE cars are the past - like the EU.
What is the disruptive innovation equivalent to electric cars that will make the EU obsolete?
The precedents aren’t successful
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The two Empires were formed by conquest. The EU is a voluntary association.
Neither was particularly which is why I chose them.
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
I think it's pretty fair to say that force of arms was a very important factor in the existence and survival of both Empires.
It's been a few decades since the Treaty of Rome and the EU does not even have an army yet. There really is a marked difference which suggests the EU has a greater chance of success.
So you were wrong then?
No, I don't think so. There was definitely lots of conquest. I was trying to give you a way to bank down gracefully and to concentrate on the main point - which is that the two Empires are not good models for the EU because the latter is a voluntary association that states apply to join, and the Empires were not.
A voluntary association that seems to have many leaders that aim to punish members that want to depart is not voluntary
Ban, close down, hound out anything, anyone, any entity that disagrees with Jezza and his inner circle. BBC, national newspapers, house of lords, police authorities, bank of england independence, OBR, National Stats agency, independent local government agencies and authorities etc etc.
A unique national and constitutional catastrophe is racing towards us.
Will Novara Media be the new national broadcaster?
I don't often disagree with the thrust of an OGH thread but this time, I'm far from convinced.
May tries to be a unifier - that is in some ways a strength and in many ways a weakness. All that matters to her (to his observer) is keeping the country, the Union and the Conservative Party in one piece (and not necessarily in that order). The brutal divisiveness of the 2016 referendum impressed upon her the need to be the candidate of reconciliation while delivering the result of the referendum.
Taking a triumphalist line especially in the terms expressed by OGH would have alienated those for whom leaving the EU was and is an act done in sorrow more in anger. Any treaty needed to be tinged with a regret it had been necessary at all in order to keep as many people as possible inside the tent.
The WA has instead demonstrated the power of the Internet - the proliferation of "expertise" was quickly able to brand the WA flawed (which it is) and enabled the hostility of both the ERG/DUP and Remainers to become established.
In essence, in trying to please everyone May ended up pleasing no one and has on the defensive ever since. However, being triumphalist would have made no difference as she would have nailed her colours to one side of the mast (as it were) and endangered the very national and party unity she is so desperate to maintain.
I'm sure I read something about a porno license being needed from April, available in all good newsagents apparently. Making Wanking Digital or some such
I don't often disagree with the thrust of an OGH thread but this time, I'm far from convinced.
May tries to be a unifier - that is in some ways a strength and in many ways a weakness. All that matters to her (to his observer) is keeping the country, the Union and the Conservative Party in one piece (and not necessarily in that order). The brutal divisiveness of the 2016 referendum impressed upon her the need to be the candidate of reconciliation while delivering the result of the referendum.
Taking a triumphalist line especially in the terms expressed by OGH would have alienated those for whom leaving the EU was and is an act done in sorrow more in anger. Any treaty needed to be tinged with a regret it had been necessary at all in order to keep as many people as possible inside the tent.
The WA has instead demonstrated the power of the Internet - the proliferation of "expertise" was quickly able to brand the WA flawed (which it is) and enabled the hostility of both the ERG/DUP and Remainers to become established.
In essence, in trying to please everyone May ended up pleasing no one and has on the defensive ever since. However, being triumphalist would have made no difference as she would have nailed her colours to one side of the mast (as it were) and endangered the very national and party unity she is so desperate to maintain.
I think you miss the mark there stodge. Firstly, May clearly chose her side with the myriad ways she has alienated Remainers. Secondly, the regret she expressed at the imperfections of her deal were to agree with the ERG criticisms of it, not to regret that the departure was necessary.
I'm sure I read something about a porno license being needed from April, available in all good newsagents apparently. Making Wanking Digital or some such
There's now a MOJ app, featuring a character called Spank the Monkey, who explains how it works.
David Cameron appeared to read from the Harold Wilson playbook without realising the same tactic wouldn't work twice. You have to remember this is bulls**t the public has heard before.
I've been umming and ahhing of late as to the best way through (out?) of this godforsaken mess but where better to look for sense on all this than a German comedian?
What exactly do you have to do either to get fired or resign from the cabinet.
At this point you could decapitate Bambi on live tv and still survive . Bradley’s comments add to the previous imbecilic statements she’s made . Grayling is a walking disaster.
I think you miss the mark there stodge. Firstly, May clearly chose her side with the myriad ways she has alienated Remainers. Secondly, the regret she expressed at the imperfections of her deal were to agree with the ERG criticisms of it, not to regret that the departure was necessary.
I disagree - she has tried to tread a line between respecting the democratic will of the people (and by definition leaving the EU meant leaving the SM and stopping FoM) and not antagonising (at least initially) a Conservative Party, a significant portion of which backed REMAIN and David Cameron. As the power within the Party has shifted more toward the ERG, she has found herself having to accommodate the more extreme line.
OGH's counterfactual suggestion would have been so out of character as to have been unrealistic but to have done that would have been to thrown down the gauntlet to the ERG and risk a serious breach within the party (as distinct from the series of smaller breaches that have transpired).
There's also what I call the "scapegoat" argument - May can be the focus for and internalise contempt for the process of withdrawal and, once she has gone, enable the Conservatives to clear the slate with a new leader unencumbered by the mistakes of his or her predecessor.
SNP - 36% (-2) Con - 26% (nc) Lab - 19% (-3) Lib Dem - 9% (+2) Green - 6% (nc)
UKIP - 3% (+2)
Holyrood Constituency:
SNP - 41% (nc) Con - 27% (+2) Lab - 19% (-4) Lib Dem - 8% (+2) Green - 3% (nc) UKIP - 2% (+1)
Westminster:
SNP - 37% (nc) Con - 27% (+1) Lab - 22% (-4) Lib Dem - 7% (+1) Green - 2% (nc) UKIP - 2% (nc) TIG - 2% (+2)
The fall in Labour's vote looks in line with what has happened across GB in recent weeks. 22% in a Westminster election remains well above the levels reached in April/May 2017 and not very different to what polls were recording in the later stages of the election campaign. If Labour picks up again nationally in the coming months 30% in Scotland becomes a realistic expectation at the next Westminster election.
I don't often disagree with the thrust of an OGH thread but this time, I'm far from convinced.
May tries to be a unifier - that is in some ways a strength and in many ways a weakness. All that matters to her (to his observer) is keeping the country, the Union and the Conservative Party in one piece (and not necessarily in that order). The brutal divisiveness of the 2016 referendum impressed upon her the need to be the candidate of reconciliation while delivering the result of the referendum.
Taking a triumphalist line especially in the terms expressed by OGH would have alienated those for whom leaving the EU was and is an act done in sorrow more in anger. Any treaty needed to be tinged with a regret it had been necessary at all in order to keep as many people as possible inside the tent.
The WA has instead demonstrated the power of the Internet - the proliferation of "expertise" was quickly able to brand the WA flawed (which it is) and enabled the hostility of both the ERG/DUP and Remainers to become established.
In essence, in trying to please everyone May ended up pleasing no one and has on the defensive ever since. However, being triumphalist would have made no difference as she would have nailed her colours to one side of the mast (as it were) and endangered the very national and party unity she is so desperate to maintain.
May a unifier! What planet are you on? This is the most divisive PM in my lifetime, who set out Brexit red lines that at least 48% of the country disagree with, that pushed ahead with her own personal version of Brexit without bothering to consult other parties, the devolved governments, or even her own MPs. Had she not been restrained by the saner members of the Cabinet she seemed hell bent on a no deal Brexit that would threaten the integrity of the UK. How could anyone possible see her as a unifier?????
I'm sure I read something about a porno license being needed from April, available in all good newsagents apparently. Making Wanking Digital or some such
I don't often disagree with the thrust of an OGH thread but this time, I'm far from convinced.
May tries to be a unifier - that is in some ways a strength and in many ways a weakness. All that matters to her (to his observer) is keeping the country, the Union and the Conservative Party in one piece (and not necessarily in that order). The brutal divisiveness of the 2016 referendum impressed upon her the need to be the candidate of reconciliation while delivering the result of the referendum.
Taking a triumphalist line especially in the terms expressed by OGH would have alienated those for whom leaving the EU was and is an act done in sorrow more in anger. Any treaty needed to be tinged with a regret it had been necessary at all in order to keep as many people as possible inside the tent.
The WA has instead demonstrated the power of the Internet - the proliferation of "expertise" was quickly able to brand the WA flawed (which it is) and enabled the hostility of both the ERG/DUP and Remainers to become established.
In essence, in trying to please everyone May ended up pleasing no one and has on the defensive ever since. However, being triumphalist would have made no difference as she would have nailed her colours to one side of the mast (as it were) and endangered the very national and party unity she is so desperate to maintain.
I think you miss the mark there stodge. Firstly, May clearly chose her side with the myriad ways she has alienated Remainers. Secondly, the regret she expressed at the imperfections of her deal were to agree with the ERG criticisms of it, not to regret that the departure was necessary.
May immediately sided with those seeking a harder Brexit. This is because her experience of Brexit immediately connected with her time at the Home Office, where she had become precoccupied - not entirely healthily or constructively, in reference to her later imperative to approach the EU's relationship with Britain- with the issue of immigration.
Although I agree with her central point, I thought the alt-right's approach to free-speech restrictions was to scream "snowflake! Free speech! Outrage Bus!". So I'm surprised she's not upholding their right to say it...
May a unifier! What planet are you on? This is the most divisive PM in my lifetime, who set out Brexit red lines that at least 48% of the country disagree with, that pushed ahead with her own personal version of Brexit without bothering to consult other parties, the devolved governments, or even her own MPs. Had she not been restrained by the saner members of the Cabinet she seemed hell bent on a no deal Brexit that would threaten the integrity of the UK. How could anyone possible see her as a unifier?????
NO, she sees herself as a unifier. Her language is a combination of "trust me" peppered by calls for the nation to re-unite and keep together.
As you say and as I said earlier, in trying to keep everyone in the tent she has caused the tent to collapse.
What exactly do you have to do either to get fired or resign from the cabinet.
At this point you could decapitate Bambi on live tv and still survive . Bradley’s comments add to the previous imbecilic statements she’s made . Grayling is a walking disaster.
Bradley, Grayling and that clot Williamson all owe their positions to Brexit and the weakness of the PM's position. She needs friends, not competence, in the Cabinet.
Although I agree with her central point, I thought the alt-right's approach to free-speech restrictions was to scream "snowflake! Free speech! Outrage Bus!". So I'm surprised she's not upholding their right to say it...
I see you going for the woman and not the content - idiot.
I mean, using the term coloured probably isn't as bad as deporting people just because they're black, but unfortunately for Amber Rudd she's done both of these things but only said shes mortified about one
What exactly do you have to do either to get fired or resign from the cabinet.
At this point you could decapitate Bambi on live tv and still survive . Bradley’s comments add to the previous imbecilic statements she’s made . Grayling is a walking disaster.
Bradley, Grayling and that clot Williamson all owe their positions to Brexit and the weakness of the PM's position. She needs friends, not competence, in the Cabinet.
And that attitude is why May is a shambling mess herself.
Maybe if she'd been bothered a bit less by friends and a bit more by competence she wouldn't have got in such a hole.
Although I agree with her central point, I thought the alt-right's approach to free-speech restrictions was to scream "snowflake! Free speech! Outrage Bus!". So I'm surprised she's not upholding their right to say it...
I see you going for the woman and not the content - idiot.
I was pointing out that her argument was inconsistent with arguments that others of her political persuasion had made in the past on a similar point.
I mean, using the term coloured probably isn't as bad as deporting people just because they're black, but unfortunately for Amber Rudd she's done both of these things but only said shes mortified about one
I mean, using the term coloured probably isn't as bad as deporting people just because they're black, but unfortunately for Amber Rudd she's done both of these things but only said shes mortified about one
SNP - 36% (-2) Con - 26% (nc) Lab - 19% (-3) Lib Dem - 9% (+2) Green - 6% (nc)
UKIP - 3% (+2)
Holyrood Constituency:
SNP - 41% (nc) Con - 27% (+2) Lab - 19% (-4) Lib Dem - 8% (+2) Green - 3% (nc) UKIP - 2% (+1)
Westminster:
SNP - 37% (nc) Con - 27% (+1) Lab - 22% (-4) Lib Dem - 7% (+1) Green - 2% (nc) UKIP - 2% (nc) TIG - 2% (+2)
The fall in Labour's vote looks in line with what has happened across GB in recent weeks. 22% in a Westminster election remains well above the levels reached in April/May 2017 and not very different to what polls were recording in the later stages of the election campaign. If Labour picks up again nationally in the coming months 30% in Scotland becomes a realistic expectation at the next Westminster election.
Yes in an immediate GE Labour would probably only hold Edinburgh S and possibly East Lothian and Coatbridge as well.
The residual 20% Labour vote in Scotland looks pretty hardcore though as the May 2017 local elections showed when Labour only got just over 20% of the vote but was still competitive with the SNP in working class parts of Fife, Lothians, Lanarkshire and Inverclyde.
The main challenge for Slab will be keeping on the board the soft SNP/Green votes who are sympathetic to Indy (but is not necessarily an overriding concern on a GEG who voted strategically for Corbyn while trying to appeal to older working class voters who are less keen on the SNPs EU stance etc at the same time.
If May is a unifier then Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
She has done zip to bring the country together . She insulted Remainers by calling them citizens of nowhere , called EU nationals queue jumpers , refused to criticize the press when it was parading judges and some MPs as enemies of the people . A horrible nasty woman who should be nowhere near no 10.
If May is a unifier then Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
She has done zip to bring the country together . She insulted Remainers by calling them citizens of nowhere , called EU nationals queue jumpers , refused to criticize the press when it was parading judges and some MPs as enemies of the people . A horrible nasty woman who should be nowhere near no 10.
Don't hold back, nico67! Tell us what you really feel!
SNP - 36% (-2) Con - 26% (nc) Lab - 19% (-3) Lib Dem - 9% (+2) Green - 6% (nc)
UKIP - 3% (+2)
Holyrood Constituency:
SNP - 41% (nc) Con - 27% (+2) Lab - 19% (-4) Lib Dem - 8% (+2) Green - 3% (nc) UKIP - 2% (+1)
Westminster:
SNP - 37% (nc) Con - 27% (+1) Lab - 22% (-4) Lib Dem - 7% (+1) Green - 2% (nc) UKIP - 2% (nc) TIG - 2% (+2)
The fall in Labour's vote looks in line with what has happened across GB in recent weeks. 22% in a Westminster election remains well above the levels reached in April/May 2017 and not very different to what polls were recording in the later stages of the election campaign. If Labour picks up again nationally in the coming months 30% in Scotland becomes a realistic expectation at the next Westminster election.
Yes in an immediate GE Labour would probably only hold Edinburgh S and possibly East Lothian and Coatbridge as well.
The residual 20% Labour vote in Scotland looks pretty hardcore though as the May 2017 local elections showed when Labour only got just over 20% of the vote but was still competitive with the SNP in working class parts of Fife, Lothians, Lanarkshire and Inverclyde.
The main challenge for Slab will be keeping on the board the soft SNP/Green votes who are sympathetic to Indy (but is not necessarily an overriding concern on a GEG who voted strategically for Corbyn while trying to appeal to older working class voters who are less keen on the SNPs EU stance etc at the same time.
I agree with most of that and suspect that Labour will derive comfort from SNP support remaining at 37%. A strong Labour performance next time should be able to push that down to circa 33%.
I mean, using the term coloured probably isn't as bad as deporting people just because they're black, but unfortunately for Amber Rudd she's done both of these things but only said shes mortified about one
If May is a unifier then Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
She has done zip to bring the country together . She insulted Remainers by calling them citizens of nowhere , called EU nationals queue jumpers , refused to criticize the press when it was parading judges and some MPs as enemies of the people . A horrible nasty woman who should be nowhere near no 10.
At the same time, both of the arguments below are probably true. In May's mind, the Conservative Party is the most authentic, and possibly the only true representation of Britain, so putting Conservative Party unity above all else in her mind makes her a national unifier.
I mean, using the term coloured probably isn't as bad as deporting people just because they're black, but unfortunately for Amber Rudd she's done both of these things but only said shes mortified about one
Rudd has deported people just for being black?
Were there White Windrushers?
I’m interested in seeing evidence to support your rather outlandish claim.
Comments
Bad faith ..
The website states: “Our general argument is that populism is best understood as a combination of individual and contextual issues (“demand side”) and the availability of successful leaders (“supply side”).”
Is that insight really what 235,386 euros buys you?
Judge people on what they do, not what they say. What the EU have done is made it clear they want us in the backstop and will move heaven and earth to make sure its the only outcome.
What is the vertical axis? E.g., how has “electoral quality” (second graph) been measured?
On the vertical axis in the first graph, why does the “data” neatly line up in horizontal lines, as if on a grid ? Anyone who deals with real data finds that it rarely occupies a set of grid points, like a checkerboard.
What are the error bars on the “datapoints”? Anyone who deals with real data knows that any datum comes with an error bar, normally asymmetrical and non-gaussian.
What are the blue lines ? How have the errors been treated in drawing the dashed blue lines. What are the covariances between the quantities and how have they been dealt with?
Unfortunately the link to the actual paper is broken right now, so I have no idea how clear they are on these points or whether it's total pseudoscience... and neither do you. But you can see some of their methodology here: https://populism.byu.edu/App_Data/Publications/Populism codebook_The New Populism 201903.pdf
People should be willing to take comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
A nickname given to people living on the Falkland Islands.
During the Falklands War, British troops noticed the similarities of many of the Falklands Islanders, to a Character from a British soap opera, ('Crossroads')
In this soap opera, Benny was a simple (mentally challenged) odd job man, known for wearing old knitted jumpers and a woolly bobble hat.
Military top brass stopped the soldiers calling the Islanders Bennies, so the soldiers started calling the Islanders 'Stills' (meaning, 'still Bennies')"
I remember when I published an article many years ago. I was young and had spent a lot of time in acquiring, cleaning, analysing and presenting the data, paying careful attention to use of colour and units. Then when it was published the typesetter had neglected to label the axes (they were in the copy I sent to the editor). I got so much flack for that it isn't true. It isn't the massive flaw you think it is.
There is a link to a file on a website.
I obviously looked at the file before posting the questions.
Perhaps answer the questions I posed, rather than conjecturing I had not looked at the file ?
Also, as a statistician, do you not think the scatter of datapoints in their first graph is rather curious?
Actually, I’d give you flak. It is a serious blunder not to have axes labels.
But, a still more serious blunder is not to have error bars on the data.
Without error bars, it is impossible to say whether the claimed correlation is meaningful.
Why should the EU succeed where, say, the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire failed?
The history of this will be interesting. Personally, I think Brexit will no longer happen.
As an advocate of the multinational state called UK, it's bizarre for you to choose examples of historical European multinational states to argue against the EU.
Any quality rag man know that should be “takes a hard stance against”
If the EU lasts a thousand years it will have done well.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed by mutual agreement between two Kingdoms and gave equal powers to each. It certainly was not formed by conquest.
When we were bought by Deutsche Bank a strict order came from Frankfurt that we were now to use “Deutsche Morgan Grenfell”
So we started answering the phone “Guten Morgan”
The HRE was really a confederation, while the AHE was largely dynastic marriage and purchase. I deliberately steered away from more controversial such as Napoleonic France precisely because of your objection
It's been a few decades since the Treaty of Rome and the EU does not even have an army yet. There really is a marked difference which suggests the EU has a greater chance of success.
'Nicola Sturgeon has ruled out holding an unofficial Scottish independence referendum, after her deputy suggested she could call one without legal approval.'
I always knew she had more sense than to contemplate such a course.
As a consequence of the Second Italian War of Independence and the Austro-Prussian War, the Habsburg Empire was on the verge of collapse in 1866, as these wars caused monumental state debt and a financial crisis.[30] The Habsburgs were forced to reconcile with Hungary, to save their empire and dynasty. The Habsburgs and part of the Hungarian political elite arranged the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The Compromise was arranged and legitimated by a very small part of the Hungarian society (suffrage was very limited: less than 8 percent of the population had voting rights), and was seen by a very large part of the population as betrayal of the Hungarian cause and the heritage of the 1848-49 War of Independence. This caused deep and lasting cracks in Hungarian society.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1103740093183995904?s=21
I don't often disagree with the thrust of an OGH thread but this time, I'm far from convinced.
May tries to be a unifier - that is in some ways a strength and in many ways a weakness. All that matters to her (to his observer) is keeping the country, the Union and the Conservative Party in one piece (and not necessarily in that order). The brutal divisiveness of the 2016 referendum impressed upon her the need to be the candidate of reconciliation while delivering the result of the referendum.
Taking a triumphalist line especially in the terms expressed by OGH would have alienated those for whom leaving the EU was and is an act done in sorrow more in anger. Any treaty needed to be tinged with a regret it had been necessary at all in order to keep as many people as possible inside the tent.
The WA has instead demonstrated the power of the Internet - the proliferation of "expertise" was quickly able to brand the WA flawed (which it is) and enabled the hostility of both the ERG/DUP and Remainers to become established.
In essence, in trying to please everyone May ended up pleasing no one and has on the defensive ever since. However, being triumphalist would have made no difference as she would have nailed her colours to one side of the mast (as it were) and endangered the very national and party unity she is so desperate to maintain.
Making Wanking Digital or some such
I've been umming and ahhing of late as to the best way through (out?) of this godforsaken mess but where better to look for sense on all this than a German comedian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtB8f4WcIw
At this point you could decapitate Bambi on live tv and still survive . Bradley’s comments add to the previous imbecilic statements she’s made . Grayling is a walking disaster.
OGH's counterfactual suggestion would have been so out of character as to have been unrealistic but to have done that would have been to thrown down the gauntlet to the ERG and risk a serious breach within the party (as distinct from the series of smaller breaches that have transpired).
There's also what I call the "scapegoat" argument - May can be the focus for and internalise contempt for the process of withdrawal and, once she has gone, enable the Conservatives to clear the slate with a new leader unencumbered by the mistakes of his or her predecessor.
Holyrood List:
SNP - 36% (-2)
Con - 26% (nc)
Lab - 19% (-3)
Lib Dem - 9% (+2)
Green - 6% (nc)
UKIP - 3% (+2)
Holyrood Constituency:
SNP - 41% (nc)
Con - 27% (+2)
Lab - 19% (-4)
Lib Dem - 8% (+2)
Green - 3% (nc)
UKIP - 2% (+1)
Westminster:
SNP - 37% (nc)
Con - 27% (+1)
Lab - 22% (-4)
Lib Dem - 7% (+1)
Green - 2% (nc)
UKIP - 2% (nc)
TIG - 2% (+2)
The fall in Labour's vote looks in line with what has happened across GB in recent weeks. 22% in a Westminster election remains well above the levels reached in April/May 2017 and not very different to what polls were recording in the later stages of the election campaign. If Labour picks up again nationally in the coming months 30% in Scotland becomes a realistic expectation at the next Westminster election.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/745595799887699969
Very worrying indeed for the future.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4042035/new-uk-porn-laws-id-age-check-online-pornography/
As you say and as I said earlier, in trying to keep everyone in the tent she has caused the tent to collapse.
Maybe if she'd been bothered a bit less by friends and a bit more by competence she wouldn't have got in such a hole.
Maubergine Al Qaeda will kidnap him.
The residual 20% Labour vote in Scotland looks pretty hardcore though as the May 2017 local elections showed when Labour only got just over 20% of the vote but was still competitive with the SNP in working class parts of Fife, Lothians, Lanarkshire and Inverclyde.
The main challenge for Slab will be keeping on the board the soft SNP/Green votes who are sympathetic to Indy (but is not necessarily an overriding concern on a GEG who voted strategically for Corbyn while trying to appeal to older working class voters who are less keen on the SNPs EU stance etc at the same time.
She has done zip to bring the country together . She insulted Remainers by calling them citizens of nowhere , called EU nationals queue jumpers , refused to criticize the press when it was parading judges and some MPs as enemies of the people . A horrible nasty woman who should be nowhere near no 10.
It's the way this country is going,the lies,the never ending bullshit and I fear for our future.
I really do.